ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked-

Public Bodies

Stephen Phillips: What steps his Department is taking to support public bodies in contracting out public services.

Francis Maude: I announced last Wednesday that the Government are identifying a range of additional commercial models for public bodies wishing to contract out services, such as joint ventures and public sector worker mutuals, alongside traditional outsourcing options. A major barrier to this is the extremely cumbersome procurement process left behind by the previous Government. An average process here typically takes almost twice as long as it does in Germany. This makes tendering less competitive and effectively excludes many smaller suppliers and social and voluntary enterprises. We are taking steps to streamline the process.

Stephen Phillips: One of the problems with the delivery of public services in the past was the previous Government's focus on delivery through either private contractors or existing local and central Government bodies. Many public sector workers were thus prevented from suggesting innovative ideas for the more efficient and cost-effective delivery of services. How will they now be encouraged to come forward with their ideas?

Francis Maude: We have already encouraged them to come forward with ideas. As part of the spending challenge that we launched in the summer, we invited public sector workers to come up with ideas to save money while protecting front-line services, and 65,000 of them did so, indicating a huge amount of pent-up frustration. We are now encouraging as many of them as possible who are interested not only in having ideas but in putting them into effect to form worker co-operatives to spin out of the public sector while continuing to deliver services.

Jon Trickett: Given that there are strict procurement rules designed to demonstrate probity and value for money, and to avoid political interference, does the Minister think that it was wise for the Department for Education to hand out a £500,000 contract to the New Schools Network, an organisation led by a former associate of the Secretary of State? Was that contract fully compliant with all the relevant tendering regulations?

Francis Maude: I certainly do not know the details of that procurement, but I am confident that it would have followed all the rules to the letter.

Public Sector Mutuals

James Morris: What progress he has made on the establishment of public sector mutuals.

Alun Cairns: What progress he has made on establishing public sector mutuals.

Francis Maude: I announced last week that every Department will put in place "rights to provide" for public sector workers to take over the running of their services. The first wave of 12 pathfinder projects was launched in August this year. Leading organisations in the sector, including Local Partnerships, the Employee Ownership Association and Co-operatives UK, have come together to launch an information and support service for public sector workers interested in mutualisation. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will encourage and support these worker co-operatives.

James Morris: Many public sector organisations and employees in my constituency are interested in this idea. Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether he sees these policies applying more to local community organisations, or whether he envisages organisations on the scale of, say, NHS trusts being able to take on mutual status?

Francis Maude: I do not think that we should be prescriptive about how large or small, or how local or broad, these co-operatives could be. The pathfinders range enormously in size: I think that the smallest has only three potential employees or members, while the largest has 1,100, and it is possible to imagine them being even larger. I hope that groups of public sector workers from right across the sector will consider whether this could be a good route forward for them to take, and we will make it as easy as possible for them to take it.

Alun Cairns: What action is the Minister taking to protect the interests of innovative public sector workers who come up with exciting ideas for public sector mutuals, but whose senior management do not support them because it might not be in their personal interest to do so?

Francis Maude: It is possible that such a situation could come about, which is why we have encouraged the organisations that I mentioned to set up the information and support service for groups of public sector workers. We will also establish a challenge group, into which this service can feed thoughts and suggestions. If there are concerns that middle and senior managers are obstructing the right of public sector workers to form these co-operatives, I hope that people will feed them directly to us, through the challenge group, so that we can take the appropriate steps.

Cathy Jamieson: Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental difference between a worker co-operative and an organisation that is fully mutual? Can he assure me that there will be a democratic process within public sector mutuals and that there will be a membership element to it?

Francis Maude: We do not have a dogmatic view about exactly what form these should take. I hope there will be considerable innovation. Some will want to form joint ventures with outside providers; in other entities, the Government or whatever other state agency is the commissioning body might want to retain a stake in the organisation. There will be strong democratic worker involvement in many of them, but the key element is a degree of ownership by the employees themselves.

Lindsay Roy: May I probe the Minister further on what specific advice and support the Government are offering to organisations that wish to become mutuals or co-operatives?

Francis Maude: A range of advice is available. The 12 pathfinder projects are supported by organisations that are able to provide support-for example, Co-operatives UK and the John Lewis Partnership, which have enormous experience in this area. The advice and support service that these organisations are putting together will be able directly to channel support and advice from organisations such as the Employee Ownership Association. That should help organisations to find the right advice for the particular circumstances of a particular group of workers.

Government Contracts

David Ruffley: What steps he is taking to increase the participation of voluntary and charitable bodies in bidding processes for Government contracts.

Nick Hurd: The Office for Civil Society will shortly publish a consultation on what changes need to be made to commissioning to make it easier for voluntary and community sector organisations to compete for public contracts. The results will feed into a wider public services reform White Paper, which is due to published early in the new year.

David Ruffley: I am grateful to the Minister. On 13 November, I chaired a summit meeting of the chief executives of 14 significant third sector bodies in Suffolk to discuss the big society and Suffolk county council's radical new strategic direction programme to contract out local public services. The third sector bodies were extremely keen to bid for these contracts, but they were concerned that unscrupulous, large corporate prime contractors and a very crude payment-by-results regime could fatally damage their cash flow-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman wants to be reassured that that will not be the case. We are grateful to him for so indicating -[Interruption.] Order. That is the end of it.

Nick Hurd: As my hon. Friend knows, there will be cases where large-scale contracts are more efficient, but we want to make sure that voluntary and community sector organisations do not feel excluded from them and are treated fairly by the prime contractors within any consortiums. The White Paper will address that issue. In addition, the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), which the Government support, will place a firmer requirement on commissioners to consider social value in their buying decisions. That will help. I should be delighted to meet representatives of the local voluntary and community sector organisations in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) and I extend the same offer to all hon. Members.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am sure that the Minister will agree that bidding processes and the awarding of Government contracts must be transparent and fair-and seen to be so. Does he therefore think it good practice that his Department awarded a huge £4.1 million contract to a charity founded by his policy adviser, Lord Wei? Will the noble Lord consider his position as a result of this matter?

Nick Hurd: I am not entirely sure to which contract the hon. Lady refers, but if she means the recently announced awarding of contracts to 12 providers of the national citizen service, that process was run in an impeccably transparent way. We are absolutely delighted with the outcome and with the prospects for that programme.

John Pugh: On probity and transparency, what puts most charitable organisations off is the time, the expense and the long drawn-out nature of the process. Is the Minister going to do something about that?

Nick Hurd: Absolutely. That is a hugely important point. Everything I have learned over the past two years suggests that for many organisations the whole process of applying for and reporting public money is a bureaucratic nightmare-often totally disproportionate to the sums involved. Changing that is fundamental to the reform of commissioning and procurement that we are undertaking.

Voluntary Sector Organisations

Diana Johnson: What assessment he has made of the likely effects of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review on voluntary sector organisations over the spending review period.

Oliver Letwin: Our programme of structural reform is opening up huge new opportunities for all sorts of voluntary and community sector organisations to take part in the delivery of public services. In the hon. Lady's constituency, City Health Care Partnerships-which, I understand, is an employee-led spin-out from the health service-is providing health visitors, district nurses, pain clinics and a range of other services. That is an admirable example of what can be done, and we hope that it will be replicated in other parts of the country.

Diana Johnson: What message would the Minister send to the Hull Families Project, which is based in Orchard Park, given that £160 million of regeneration funds were stripped from that community on Monday, and to the Hull Churches Home from Hospital Service, which fears that the local authority and the NHS will cut its budget? What message does that send about the coalition Government's real approach to disadvantaged communities?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady knows that the coalition Government have protected the NHS budget, for the very reason that we regard it as a priority. She may also know that the public health White Paper, which is on the way, will announce our proposals-already well foreshadowed-on the health premium. The health premium will specifically benefit those who are improving public health locally, and will organise funding so that it most benefits the most disadvantaged parts of the country, thus dealing with the precise points that the hon. Lady raises.

Mark Williams: There are increasing pressures on independent citizens advice bureaux throughout the country. Debt management issues are an ever-present feature of their work. What assurances can the Minister give that expertise and resources will be available to CABs locally so that they can undertake their invaluable work?

Oliver Letwin: The coalition Government certainly agree that citizens advice bureaux form a fantastically important part of the fabric of the big society and support for people locally, and I believe that Members throughout the House recognise the value of their services. We will support them in every possible way, and I should be delighted to talk to the hon. Gentleman about any specific issues in his constituency.

Liam Byrne: I believe that strengthening civil society is a common cause between us. Labour is certainly very proud that the sector doubled when we were in government. Now, however, charities are saying that they face cuts of a little over £3 billion during the next couple of years. How many jobs does the Minister expect to be lost in charities that do not have Conservative advisers at their helms or on their boards? To the untrained eye it seems that, worryingly, some charities are now more equal than others.

Oliver Letwin: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that more than three quarters of charities receive no Government money, and therefore will not be affected. He ignores the opportunities presented by the new public service reforms. The Work programme, for example, is creating huge opportunities for the voluntary and community sector, and there will be increased funds from that source. There will be more funds for drug prevention, rehabilitation and recovery, and for the rehabilitation of prisoners. Payment-by-results contracts will be available for a huge range of new voluntary and community sector operators. I expect the right hon. Gentleman to see an expansion, not a reduction, in the sector and its activities.

Government Contracts

Michael Ellis: What plans he has to encourage opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to apply for Government contracts.

Julian Smith: What plans he has to increase engagement of small businesses in public procurement processes.

Damian Collins: What plans he has to encourage opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to apply for Government contracts.

Jason McCartney: What plans he has to encourage opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to apply for Government contracts.

Oliver Letwin: On 1 November, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced a package of measures to help small and medium-sized enterprises to obtain public sector contracts. They include halving the length and breadth of the pre-qualification process for small firms, and creating a single website called Contracts Finder, where small businesses can locate all the contracts that are available from Government.

Michael Ellis: Given that 95% of people in my constituency are employed by small and medium-sized enterprises and that some companies would relish the opportunity of a fair playing field in bidding for Government contracts, will my right hon. Friend make suitable changes to the bureaucratic burden that they currently bear, thanks to the previous Government, as soon as possible?

Oliver Letwin: The short answer is yes-and abundantly so. The measures I just described are intended to do that. In addition, we are looking at the causes of delay in the procurement process because, as was mentioned earlier, that is often part of the problem. We are also requiring suppliers to pay their subcontractors within 30 days, and encouraging them to pass those payments right down the line to the smallest businesses.

Julian Smith: These are great measures for small business, but may I impress upon the ministerial team the need to move forward with them now, because British small business is desperate for access to these contracts? So-please, please, please-get on with it now.

Oliver Letwin: I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we are doing. That is why we are publishing every contract for tender of over £10,000 on a website, enabling people to see the opportunities. It is also why we have put in every Department's business plan the requirement to report on the percentage by value of contracts they have let to small and medium-sized enterprises. We shall measure the extent to which Departments fulfil that requirement.  [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. For a start, there is too much noise in the Chamber. Secondly, the Minister is, no doubt because of his natural courtesy, looking back at the person by whom he has been questioned, but he must address the Chamber so we can all hear him.

Damian Collins: Will the Minister consider organising an event or exhibition at which small businesses could show what they can offer to Government procurement? Perhaps we could have a street fair in Downing street, and invite people out of their offices to come and see for themselves?

Oliver Letwin: I cannot offer my hon. Friend a street fair in Downing street, but I can certainly promise that we will take up his suggestion of looking into ways of enabling small businesses to bring home to those responsible for procurement just what a valuable contribution they make.

Jason McCartney: Perhaps we could have a street fair in Colne Valley. SMEs in my constituency will certainly welcome the measures, which will make it easier for them to do business with the Government, but can the Minister assure them that the process will be more accountable and transparent?

Oliver Letwin: Yes, indeed, I can; in fact everything I have been describing tends to that end. We are going to make sure SMEs know what contracts are available; we are going to make sure they get a proper account of what is awarded; and we are going to make sure that Departments are held to account in awarding to SMEs. We want transparency all the way through the process because that is what will drive Government to let contracts to SMEs.

Michael McCann: Now that Lord Young has gone, does the Minister agree that SMEs have never had it so good in respect of their share of Government procurements given the scale of cuts announced in the spending review?

Oliver Letwin: Lord Young has resigned. My personal view is that the longest and deepest recession since the war, and the vast fiscal deficits that the Labour party bequeathed to us, have left not only SMEs but the entire country, and, of course, the Government, with an enormous challenge that we are now trying to meet.

Richard Burden: Some of the enterprises of relevance in this context are third sector or voluntary sector organisations, for whom the operation of the compact is important. How will the Minister respond to the concerns expressed by a number of those organisations that the compact is not working and that the new compact's accountability mechanisms are not robust enough? In respect of cuts, the reality is that voluntary sector organisations are first in line, and this Government are doing nothing to address that.

Oliver Letwin: Let us be clear: the compact is not about the level of expenditure but about the extent to which, in each contract, the Government play fair by those with whom they are contracting. We absolutely accept that the operation of the compact under the previous Government was not adequate. We are introducing new measures to make it more transparent, and the entire structures of our payment by results contracts will be totally transparent and in line with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the compact.

Brian H Donohoe: Will this include Scottish enterprises?

Oliver Letwin: Of course. If the Scottish Government take the correct measures, it will apply in Scotland; and in the UK as a whole, and in England in particular, we will make sure there is transparency and that the compact is totally observed regardless of where the contractors come from.

Hugh Bayley: The cuts in public expenditure will put enormous pressure on construction industry firms, and the smaller and medium-sized firms will be particularly badly hit. What are the Government going to do to protect those companies so that when the economy improves they will still be there to do the construction that is needed?

Oliver Letwin: The greatest protection for small and medium-sized enterprises in the construction sector and elsewhere is, of course, a macro-economic framework that enables them to survive the recession, prosper and grow. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken the steps that have led the world in providing a solid macro-economic framework and low interest rates that enable-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I call Mr David Amess.

Consultancy

David Amess: What estimate he has made of the change in his Department's spending on consultancy between 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Francis Maude: The Government have cut the previous Government's profligate spending on consultancy. In the first six months of this financial year, consulting spend by the Cabinet Office fell by 42% compared with the trajectory for the previous year. In the first six months of this year, consulting spend right across central Government fell by £350 million-or more than 50%, so it has more than halved-compared with the same period last year.

David Amess: The whole House should welcome that news. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that proper processes were proceeded with on the procurement of the DLA Piper contract?

Francis Maude: I can only assume that the proper processes were followed, because this happened under the previous Government, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) was Minister for the Cabinet Office. Any suggestions of a conflict of interest arising from the position of the Deputy Prime Minister's wife are wholly misplaced, because the contract was placed before he was anywhere near government.

Denis MacShane: I welcome the Minister's statement on a reduction in consultancy fees, but hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is still being spent with these firms. Why does he not simply say no and get civil servants to do their jobs?

Francis Maude: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's robust support for this Government's change in direction from that taken by the Government of whom he was a member. We believe that the incontinent use of consultants is demeaning for civil servants, who would, in many cases, like to be doing this work and are very capable of doing it.  [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Far too many private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. This is very discourteous and it should end.

Civil Service Compensation Scheme

Claire Perry: What recent progress he has made on his proposals for reform of the civil service compensation scheme.

Jeremy Lefroy: What recent progress he has made on his proposals for reform of the civil service compensation scheme.

Francis Maude: The Superannuation Bill, which will impose caps on compensation payments and permit the reform of the civil service compensation scheme, is proceeding through the other place. I remain confident of being able to introduce a new scheme before the House rises.

Claire Perry: I thank the Minister for that reply. More than 30% of the work force in my constituency are employed by the public sector, given the heavy proportion of Army personnel and Ministry of Defence civil servants there. Many of the MOD civil servants are members of the Public and Commercial Services union. Has it come to the table and joined the negotiations, or does it still stand alone?

Francis Maude: Sadly, despite repeated invitations, the PCS has not come forward with concrete proposals. The other five unions engaged constructively and their proposals formed the basis for the new scheme that we have developed. I am sorry that the PCS, which represents so many civil servants, particularly lower-paid civil servants, has not chosen to take part in a constructive spirit.

Jeremy Lefroy: In my right hon. Friend's proposals for reforming the scheme, what account is he taking of the protection of the lowest paid staff in the civil service?

Francis Maude: That has been our principal concern in fashioning a new scheme. Civil servants' average pay is lower than that in the private sector and the wider public sector, and it is right that they should be at the forefront of our concerns. The scheme that we have developed, in negotiation and consultation with five of the six unions, gives particular protection for them by deeming that the salary on which their compensation calculation is based is £23,000, so anyone paid less than that will have their compensation calculated on that basis.

Well-being

Julian Huppert: How his Department plans to measure and promote well-being.

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentlemen will know from the Budget and previous statements by the Prime Minister that the Government are committed to developing broader measurements of well-being to inform policy development. A conference tomorrow will bring together experts to discuss how we measure and promote robust, independent measurements of subjective well-being.

Julian Huppert: I am delighted that the Government are taking this issue of well-being seriously. Does the Minister agree that promoting well-being involves a focus on development and understanding in schools, not just exams, on fulfilment and job satisfaction at work, not just salary, and on community and opportunity nationally, not just gross domestic product?

Nick Hurd: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a big interest in this subject as vice-chair of the all-party group. The Government take it seriously. We are taking forward the recommendations in the Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi report and the conference tomorrow will be the first step in deciding how we go forward to measure and promote subjective well-being. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's view will be heard.

Barry Gardiner: As part of his efforts to promote well-being, will the Minister consider the abolition of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority?

Nick Hurd: I sense that there might be some consensus on that in the House, but it is a subject well above my pay grade.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Michael Connarty: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 November.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Guardsman Christopher Davies of 1st Battalion the Irish Guards, who died on Wednesday 17 November in Afghanistan. He was the 100th British soldier to die this year, a reminder of the high price we are paying for the vital work that is being done. Christopher was an utterly professional and highly respected soldier and we send our deepest condolences to his families and his loved ones.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Michael Connarty: I associate myself and my colleagues with the condolences that the Prime Minister passed on and I also express sympathies to the families of those involved in the New Zealand mining disaster, two of whom come from Scotland.
	Does the Prime Minister share my concerns that, although good restaurants pass on 100% of tips to their staff, some are using bogus tronc or kitty schemes to avoid paying national insurance while ripping off up to 14% of their staff's tips? Will he personally stand up for fair tips and agree to meet me and a delegation of hospitality workers to discuss the need for the promised one-year review of the operation of the law on tips?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to mention the tragic accident at the New Zealand mine. What has happened is immensely sad. I spoke to the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, this morning and I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the 29 miners who lost their lives and with their families-particularly Peter Rodger from Perth and Malcolm Campbell from St Andrews. I know that our high commission and the consular officials are in touch with their families and doing everything to help at what must be an impossibly difficult time.
	The hon. Gentleman has been a long-standing campaigner on the issue of tips and has done some excellent work on it. It is right that tips should be distributed to staff and should not be used to top up the minimum wage. They should not be diverted in any way. The law is very clear: tips must not be used to back up the minimum wage and enforcement officers should take action to ensure that that does not happen. The hon. Gentleman should meet Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers and they can look at the important code of practice that was produced and ensure that the hospitality industry is meeting it.

David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to sort out the mess in Parliament square, particularly ahead of 29 April? Does he think that it is reasonable that visitors to London from home and abroad should be faced with a no-go area surrounded by a campsite?

David Cameron: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I will always defend the right to protest and the right to protest peacefully. It seems to me entirely fair that people should protest, but I have never seen why they are able to sleep in Parliament square. I have had many discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I think 29 April is too far a deadline by which to get this problem sorted out.

Edward Miliband: I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Guardsman Christopher Davies of 1st Battalion the Irish Guards. He died providing heroic service to our country, like all our other troops. We pay tribute to him and send our deepest condolences to his family.
	I also join the Prime Minister in expressing deep sadness about the deaths of the miners who were tragically killed in the underground explosion in New Zealand, including the two miners from Scotland. I know from my constituency the risks that miners take when working underground and our hearts go out to the miners' families and friends.
	I also thank the whole House for the good wishes on the birth of my second son, Samuel. In particular, I thank the Prime Minister and his wife Samantha for their very generous gifts-[[Hon. Members: "Ooh!"] I shall keep the gifts secret. I also thank the Deputy Prime Minister.
	I want to turn to a decision that has been made in advance of the education White Paper, on which there will be a statement at 12.30 pm. Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep concern among schools, families and leading sportsmen and women about the Education Secretary's decision to take away all the funding from the highly successful school sport partnerships? Will the Prime Minister overrule the Education Secretary and reverse the decision?

David Cameron: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back and I congratulate him again on the birth of baby Samuel. I very much know what it is like-the noise, the mess, the chaos and trying to get the children to shut up. I am sure that it was lovely to have two weeks away from it all. He is very welcome.
	On the point about sports funding, in the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will announce later we are taking a very different approach. We are taking a lot of the specific grants that were spent on specific subjects and putting them into basic school funding. That means that the schools budget is going to go up by £3.6 billion over this Parliament. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that what we experienced over the last decade was a lot of money being put into school sport but without seeing a lot of progress.  [ Interruption. ] We did not see a lot of progress. Let me give him one figure: the number of schools offering rugby, hockey, netball and gymnastics actually fell under the previous Government. That approach did not work and it is time for a new one.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister will come to live to regret that answer, because he should not believe the nonsense that the Education Secretary is telling him about this. Since 2002, we have seen an increase from 25% to 90% in the number of kids doing more than two hours of sport a week. We have seen 1 million more kids doing competitive sport between schools and-I would have thought the Prime Minister would support this-we have a network of 200,000 volunteers from the school sport partnerships. I say to him: that sounds like the big society to me. Why is he undermining it?

David Cameron: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what we have ended up with after 10 years of that approach. Only two in every five pupils play any competitive sport regularly in their school. That is a terrible record. Only one in five children plays regular competitive sport against other schools. The approach that Labour took for all those years did not work. The time for endlessly telling head teachers what to do and how to spend their money is over. It is time to trust head teachers, give them the budget and let them decide how to make sure that we have great competitive sport within school and between schools.

Edward Miliband: If the Prime Minister will not take it from me, perhaps he will take it from Jo Phillips, the school sports co-ordinator in Chipping Norton school in his constituency. In a letter to me, she said:
	"I am devastated to witness the potential demise of this legacy with the sweep of Mr Gove's pen. I wish that he had spoken to me, the teachers in our partnership, our students, our parents and our local sports clubs and providers".
	I say to the Prime Minister: this is frankly a daft decision that he should U-turn on as soon as possible. I am afraid that it sums up this Education Secretary: high-handed, incompetent and unfair. Why does the Prime Minister not get a grip on it?

David Cameron: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that last year the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds playing sport went down. That was after all the money that Labour spent and all the initiatives. It simply did not work. What we are doing is protecting the playing fields under our planning rules and taking back the vetting and barring scheme that stopped so many people from taking part in school sport. Again, there is a fundamental difference. Labour's approach was specific grant after specific grant, wrapping teachers and schools in red tape and not making any progress. We take a different approach: putting the money into the schools budget, growing it by £3.6 billion, holding a schools Olympics and promoting school sport. That is the way that will make a real difference.

Jackie Doyle-Price: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, during the international negotiations regarding the economic situation in Ireland, at any point anyone suggested that countries with large deficits should slow down the rate at which they are reducing them?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend asks a very good question. In the G20, the G8 and European Councils, there is absolutely nobody who thinks that if they have a big budget deficit they should do nothing about it. The only people who seem to be taking that view are the Opposition, who now have a new approach. They are having a policy review, and the Leader of the Opposition says:
	"In terms of policy...we start with a blank page."
	That would be a great help at the G20.

Russell Brown: UK Border Agency funding to support immigration and related work at the ports unit in Stranraer and Cairnryan ceased yesterday, with the commitment that all such work would be dealt with in Northern Ireland. Without additional resources at that location, I believe that that cannot work. If in the coming months the ports unit in my constituency does not see a reduction in immigration-related cases, will the Prime Minister revisit the issue?

David Cameron: What we do at our borders is incredibly important. I spent some time yesterday with the Home Secretary at Heathrow airport, meeting UK Border Agency staff. They do a fantastic job, and I want to help them go on doing it. I shall look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says- [ Interruption. ] The answer is that what we are going to do is make sure that immigration work is done in Northern Ireland rather than at Stranraer, but I shall look very carefully at that to make sure that the system is working.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a proper and well planned international rescue plan for the Irish economy would be far less damaging to the wider economy of this country than some of the possible dire alternatives?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Every man, woman and child in Ireland spends more than £3,000 each year on British goods and services. Our economies are very intertwined-very interlinked-and it is right that we take part in helping to ensure stability and growth in the Irish economy.

Jim Sheridan: In the context of "We are all in this together", could the Prime Minister explain why he proposes to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which protects some of the poorest workers in the country, while at the same time he is protecting from public scrutiny the salaries and bonuses of major bankers in this country?

David Cameron: We have looked very carefully at all the quangos and tried to work out which ones need to stay and which ones need to go. That was long overdue. We have a minimum wage and a tax credit system, and there are so many quangos that are not adding value that it makes sense to give taxpayers value and scrap the ones that are not doing anything.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend explain why at every turn-the City of London, the investigation order, economic governance of Europe and the stabilisation mechanism-the coalition Government under his premiership are acquiescing in more European integration, not less? And there is no repatriation of powers.

David Cameron: It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I think he is wrong. Under the approach of a previous Government, we would have caved in when the European Parliament asked for a 6% budget increase. We have not, and we have fought that increase- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister's views about the views of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), and I hope the House does.

David Cameron: Also, we will make sure that future bail-out mechanisms should not involve non-euro countries such as Britain having to make those contributions. That is something we will secure in Europe.

Edward Miliband: Does the Prime Minister agree that just as it is right to disclose top salaries in the public sector, so too it must be right to require banks to disclose the number of employees paid salary and bonuses of more than £1 million?

David Cameron: Yes, we do agree with that. The last Government commissioned the Walker review. David Walker has carried out that review and made his report. He has made it very clear that he thinks we should make progress with the transparency agenda at the same time as other European countries. That is a view we think should be taken into account.

Edward Miliband: indicated  dissent .

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the fact is that he was part of the Government who appointed David Walker. I would rather listen to someone who knows something about banking than someone who knows nothing about anything.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister will have to do better than that. He is demanding transparency-rightly-from the public sector, but unless we have transparency in the banking system, shareholders cannot exercise their duty to clamp down on unacceptable bonuses. The Business Secretary issued a statement on Monday, when news of the climbdown was in the offing. He said:
	"Transparency is key to creating confidence in any commitment from our banks to behave more responsibly on pay and bonuses."
	Why will the Prime Minister not listen to his Business Secretary?

David Cameron: We agree with the approach of transparency. That is why the Walker review was set up, and that is why we should examine what Walker has to say. I will take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about lots of things, but I will not when it comes to the banks. He was in the Treasury when the previous Government did not regulate the banks properly. He was in the Treasury when they set up the tripartite system that failed. He was in the Treasury when they had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. He was in the Treasury when they gave Fred Goodwin-the man who broke the Royal Bank of Scotland-a knighthood. I would go back to the blank sheet of paper, if I were you.

Edward Miliband: I will compare my record in the Treasury any time to the Prime Minister's-he was there on Black Wednesday.
	Is this not just typical of the Prime Minister? Before the election, he promised "a day of reckoning" for the bankers. We passed the legislation. It is there for him to implement. It is not very much to ask. All that the legislation requires is that the banks publish the number of people-not even their names, as the Chancellor used to call for-getting pay and bonuses above £1 million. It does not make sense to wait for Europe. Why does the Prime Minister not show a lead and just get it done?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to contrast his record in the Treasury.  [Interruption.] Yes, let us remind people that when he was in the Treasury the Government built the biggest budget deficit of any G20 country. We had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. It was his Government-[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] It was his Government who set up the Walker review, and he should listen to what it has to say. The right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say about the deficit. He has nothing to say about regulation. He is just the nowhere man of British politics.

Michael Crockart: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the Movember campaign, in which men grow moustaches for the month of November to advance awareness of prostate cancer. Will he join me in congratulating the almost half a million people worldwide, many in the UK, who are on track to raise £25 million this year in sponsorship? Given how good we look, will he consider joining us next year?

David Cameron: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on such a magnificent specimen-the moustache that he has grown. It is absolutely right to raise awareness of prostate cancer. The campaign is a very good charitable move. I can see that some of his neighbours along the Bench have followed his example, as have some of the people in my protection team. They are all to be commended for raising awareness about a real killer that we need to do more about.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Guardsman Christopher Davies who, sadly, lost his life in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister will be aware of problems with post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by many service personnel and veterans across the United Kingdom. Will he now give a commitment to implement in full the report prepared by his hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), which makes key recommendations to help our veterans and service personnel with that dreadful condition?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are implementing in full the report of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). He did an excellent report, particularly about mental health issues and how we need to invest in them, both in the forces and in our NHS, and we are carrying out those recommendations.

Julian Huppert: Can the Prime Minister inform the House how much foreign students contribute to the economy, how many jobs they create by being here, and how much their fees support funding for higher education for domestic students?

David Cameron: Foreign students make a big contribution to British universities and to the British economy, but the Home Secretary and I went to Heathrow yesterday to talk with UK Border Agency staff, and the one thing that they all raised was the problem of bogus students coming to the UK-people arriving at our borders who have a visa and who are claiming to go and do an MA or a BA, but who cannot speak English. The problem is that Border Agency staff cannot stop them, because they already have the visa. I am convinced, as I have said at the Dispatch Box before, that we can control immigration properly by cutting down on bogus students and people coming here without a reason, while helping the UK economy at the same time.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does the Prime Minister agree that the £162 million sports budget is a price worth paying for the health and fitness of our schoolchildren?

David Cameron: Everyone wants to see an expansion of competitive sport in schools, and I feel absolutely passionately about the issue. The fact is the approach we have taken for the last decade has meant that only one in five-one in five; that is pathetic-of our children is playing competitive sport against other schools. There is a choice in politics: to go on with an approach that is failing, or to make a change and do it differently.  [ Interruption. ] They are shouting on the Opposition Front Bench, because they know that their record was one of lots of money spent but complete failure.

Gavin Williamson: The issue of workplace bullying is highlighted in an article in the  New Statesman this week. It states:
	"Ed Miliband's team are terrified of Ed Balls and Yvette. They think they're going to...kill him...because they"-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat immediately. That question has got nothing whatsoever to do with Government policy.

Dennis Skinner: If the Prime Minister is so keen to put a cap on immigration, why did he earlier state that he gave his 100% backing to Turkey joining the EU? Surely he knows that most immigration to Britain comes from the EU. Does he not think that there is a stench of hypocrisy about the Government's immigration policy?

David Cameron: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong, for a very clear reason. If we look at immigration, we find that migration between European countries and the UK is broadly in balance. The excess immigration all comes from outside the EU. The current figures-under the last Government-are for net migration into the UK of 200,000 a year, and that is 2 million people across a decade. In our view, that is too high, it needs to be cut and a cap is a very important part of that.

Jonathan Lord: What assessment has the Prime Minister made of Len McCluskey's statement that
	"there is no such thing as an irresponsible strike"?

David Cameron: I think he is completely and utterly wrong, and the world is in a slightly mad place when someone who supports Militant Tendency can be elected to the largest union in the country on 17% of the vote. Indeed, that same union basically picks the leader of the Labour party and pays all his bills. It is completely wrong, and if the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is going to be a reformer he had better do something about it.

Elfyn Llwyd: Despite being slightly ahead of the curve in the moustache stakes, may I take the Prime Minister back to an exchange that we had in June? Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), much more needs to be done to help our troops who return from conflict. I know the Prime Minister is very concerned about that. I am very concerned about it, and I hope that more will be done. In particular, there are so many people now returning who become homeless, and medical services are necessary, so will he please commit himself to making an urgent statement on the matter before long? Time is running on.

David Cameron: The Government are very closely focused on that issue. It is not just about medical services, as the hon. Gentleman says; it is also about long-term mental health needs. In the US, veterans are contacted every single year to check up on their mental health status. When we look at the mental health problems that came out of the Falklands war, where, tragically, more people killed themselves after the Falklands, it is estimated, than died in the war, we find that we are storing up a huge problem for the future because of the incredibly active service that people have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to prepare for the situation now. The Government are fully aware of that; I am very aware of it myself. I am not sure about a parliamentary statement, but we do want to legislate on the military covenant and then make sure that it goes through everything that Government does.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Prime Minister, like the shadow Chancellor, believe that the 50p tax rate should be temporary?

David Cameron: Yes, I agree with the shadow Chancellor. The interesting question is whether he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has two policies on tax, the graduate tax and the 50p tax, and his shadow Chancellor does not agree with either.

Luciana Berger: Before the election, the Prime Minister pledged not to cut education maintenance allowance and the Deputy Prime Minister pledged to vote against tuition fees. Can the Prime Minister now explain to my 17-year-old constituent Lauren Bedford the difference between a pledge and a promise?

David Cameron: What I would say to the hon. Lady's constituent is that we inherited a complete mess from the previous Government. We have a choice-we can deal with it or we can end up in a situation like in Ireland and other countries of not just cutting education maintenance allowance but cutting everything. We are going to replace it with something that is more targeted on those who need the money to stay on at school-that is in the best interests of her constituents and everyone else.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Stepping Stones Nigeria is a children's-based charity in Lancaster. It works with its Nigerian partners to rescue children who are accused of witchcraft and often, if they were left, would be persecuted or killed, and have recently been subject to a great deal of intimidation. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to do whatever it can to assist the children's-based charities in Nigeria?

David Cameron: We have very close relations with Nigeria, and I am sure that the Foreign Office will be interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. The charity to which he refers does an extremely important job.

William Bain: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Four Hills nursing home in Ruchill in my constituency there are some of the 60,000 people across this country whose quality of life will be shattered because of his Government's decision to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance? How can he possibly justify this cruel cut of either £18.95 per week or £49.85 per week to some of the most decent people who have paid their taxes all their lives?

David Cameron: It is important that we make sure that disability living allowance is paid consistently to people who are in hospital and to people who are in care homes, and that is what we are doing. As I understand it, the Labour Front Bench supports this change-yes? Nod? On a previous occasion, the leader of the Labour party said that he supported our changes to disability living allowance-or is this another area where it is back to the blank sheet of paper?

Mark Pawsey: Now that the Government have brought forward details of their new homes bonus, will the Prime Minister join me in applauding councils such as Rugby borough council, which is proceeding with proposals for substantial development?

David Cameron: I do think this is important. For years, we were spending lots of money on housing but not building any houses-why? Because there was no incentive for local authorities and few incentives for house builders. We are changing that so that even though the resources are limited, a lot more house building will go ahead.

George Howarth: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that education is a powerful agent for social mobility. While I welcome in principle the pupil premium, emerging details seem to suggest that taken together with the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance, it could deter some young people from staying on in education. Will he agree to meet a delegation of experts to address that very specific problem?

David Cameron: I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes this extremely seriously, as do I. I have seen the letter that he has written to the Education Secretary, who I am sure would be happy to meet him to discuss this. Basically, what is happening is that we are seeing per-pupil funding that is not being cut, and on top of that we are going to see the £2.5 billion of the pupil premium. That will mean overall that the education budget rises by £3.6 billion across this Parliament. That is a substantial funding increase. I am sure that the pupil premium will have the positive effect that the right hon. Gentleman wants and that I want, but I am also sure that he can look at the detail of it with the Education Secretary.

Mark Spencer: I have recently been meeting many charities in my constituency, such as Rumbles catering project and Indigo Children, many of which have expressed concern at the reduction of local authority funding and the time lag between the opening of the big society bank. Can the Prime Minister assure me that that big fund will be quick and easy for those charities to access?

David Cameron: Yes, I can. The point that my hon. Friend raises is exactly why we are introducing a £100 million transition fund to help charities that might be affected by difficult decisions by local authorities to help them through that time. That is exactly why we are doing it, and I expect that we would have the support of the whole House in doing so.

Si�n James: Will the Prime Minister explain to me how the closure of the Identity and Passport Service information office in my constituency will enhance safety and security in this country? It is possibly going to be replaced by a risk-assessment system, which surely cannot be right. It surely cannot be safe and secure.

David Cameron: I am very happy to look into the individual case that the hon. Lady mentions and write to her, but the truth is that we are having to make savings right across the public sector, which means big changes in the way that we do things. In each case, we should be looking at ensuring that the effect that we want is delivered by the money that we spend. We have to do that across the public sector, and any Government would have to do that, but I am happy to take up her individual case.

Andrew Bingham: The residents of Glossop and Tintwistle in my constituency have suffered for years due to excessive traffic. As we try to get the best we can from the meagre resources left by the Labour party- [Interruption.] What words can the Prime Minister offer as encouragement to those residents of the possibility of a bypass in the future? Will he or a Minister visit Tintwistle with me to see the situation?

David Cameron: The Opposition do not like to hear about the mess they left this country in. Just in case they are in any doubt, we will be talking about the mess they have made not in five months' time, but in five years' time too.
	On transport expenditure, we are spending £30 billion on transport investment. That is more than the Labour party planned, and it means that there will be schemes that can go ahead. I wish my hon. Friend well with the work that he will be doing with the Department for Transport.

Yvonne Fovargue: It is now nearly four years since the collapse of Farepak left hundreds of people in Makerfield and thousands of people throughout the country without a Christmas. They have not yet received one penny in compensation or a satisfactory explanation. Will the Prime Minister meet me to bring this sorry affair to a conclusion as soon as possible?

David Cameron: I well remember the case the hon. Lady mentions, and it happened at a time that brought misery to many families who had saved and who were expecting to have a good Christmas, and did not get it. It was a particularly tragic case. I will sort out for her to have a meeting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether, as she says, we can bring this sorry episode to a close.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Secretary Michael Gove to make a statement.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. First, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that points of order come after the statement, and secondly, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that we can hear the statement from Mr Secretary Gove.

Schools White Paper

Michael Gove: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to a make a statement to accompany today's publication of the coalition Government's White Paper on schools.
	England is fortunate that we have so many great schools, so many superb teachers and so many outstanding head teachers. Their achievements deserve to be celebrated, and I was delighted that last week, the Prime Minister and I were able to meet hundreds of the very best school leaders in Downing street to congratulate them on their work and welcome their commitment to the academy programme.
	We are fortunate indeed that our schools system has so many important strengths, but our commitment to making opportunity more equal means that we cannot shy away from confronting weaknesses. We are failing to keep pace with the world's best-performing education nations. In the past 10 years we have slipped behind other nations, going from fourth in the world for science to 14th, seventh in the world for literacy to 17th and eighth in the world for mathematics to 24th.
	At the same time, the gulf between the opportunities available to the rich and the chances given to the poor has grown wider. The gap between the A-level performance of children in independent schools and state schools doubled under Labour, and in the last year for which we have figures, out of a population of 80,000 children eligible for free school meals, just 40 made it to Oxford and Cambridge, a drop from the previous year, when just 45 made it. Social mobility went backwards under Labour, and it is the mission of this coalition Government to reverse that unhappy trend and to make opportunity more equal. Under this Government, we can become an aspiration nation once more.
	If we are to make the most of the potential of every child, we need to learn from those countries that outperform us educationally and have more equal societies. This White Paper does just that. It takes the best ideas from the highest-performing education nations and applies them to our own circumstances.
	The single most important lesson, which is reflected in the title of our White Paper, is the importance of teaching. The best schools systems recruit the best people to teach, train them intensively in the craft of teaching, continue to develop them as professionals throughout their career, groom natural leaders for headship positions and give great heads the chance to make a difference. That is why we will reform and improve teacher training by establishing a new generation of teaching schools, which will be based on the model of teaching hospitals. Outstanding schools will be showcases for the best in teaching practice. We will also invest in doubling the number of top graduates who enter teaching through Teach First, and will create a new programme, Teach Next, to attract into teaching high performers from other professions. We will subsidise graduates in strategic subjects such as science and maths to enter teaching and create a new troops-to-teachers programme to attract natural leaders from the armed forces into the classroom.
	Because we know that the biggest barrier to recruiting and retaining good people in teaching is poor pupil behaviour, we will take decisive action on discipline. Unless order is maintained in the classroom, teachers cannot teach and children cannot learn, so we will make it easier for teachers to impose detentions on disruptive pupils by abolishing the rule that requires 24-hours notice before a detention is given.
	We will give teachers stronger powers to search students if they bring items into school and are intent on disruption. We will give teachers clearer rules on the use of force and we will protect them from false allegations made by disruptive and vindictive pupils if they act to keep order.
	We will support schools to introduce traditional blazer-and-tie uniforms, prefects and house systems. We will prioritise action to tackle bullying, especially racist and homophobic bullying, and we will make it easier for schools to exclude disruptive children without the fear of seeing excluded children reinstated over their heads. We will improve education for troubled young people by bringing in new organisations to run alternative provision for excluded pupils.
	By improving behaviour, we can then free teachers to raise standards. We will reform our national curriculum so that it is a benchmark we can use to measure ourselves against the world's best school systems instead of a straitjacket that stifles the creativity of our best teachers. We will slim down a curriculum that has become overloaded, over-prescriptive and over-bureaucratic by stripping out unnecessary clutter and simply specifying the core knowledge in strategic subjects that every child should know at each key stage. That will give great teachers more freedom to innovate and to inspire. We will support their drive to raise standards for all by reforming our exams. We will reform assessment in primary schools to reduce teaching to the test and we will make GCSEs more rigorous by stripping out modules. We will make GCSE performance tables more aspirational by judging schools on how well all students do not just in English and maths but in science, modern languages and the humanities, such as history and geography.
	We will also reverse the previous Government's decision to downgrade the teaching of proper English by restoring the recognition of spelling, punctuation and grammar in GCSEs. Because we know that it is great teaching and great teachers who improve schools, we will reduce the bureaucracy that holds them back and put teachers at the heart of school improvement.
	We will double the number of national leaders of education-outstanding head teachers with a mission to turn round underperforming schools. We will raise the minimum standards expected of all schools, so primaries and secondaries that fail to get students to an acceptable level and fail to have students making decent progress will be eligible for intervention. We will make £110 million available to create a new endowment fund to turn these schools round, and we will introduce a reward scheme to make additional incentive payments available for great heads who turn round underperforming schools.
	In our drive to improve all schools, local authorities will be our indispensable partners. They will play a new role as parents champion, making admissions fairer, so parents choose schools rather than schools choosing parents. They will act as a strong voice for the vulnerable by ensuring that excluded children and those with special needs are properly supported, and they will be energetic champions of educational excellence.
	As more and more schools become increasingly autonomous, local authorities will increasingly step back from management and, instead, provide focused leadership. They will challenge underperformance, blow the whistle on weak schools and commission new provision-whether it be from other high-performing schools, academy sponsors or free school promoters.
	The need for thoroughgoing reform is urgent. Our competitors are all accelerating the pace of their education reforms. From America to Singapore, New Zealand to Hong Kong, schools are being granted greater freedom, great teachers are being given more responsibilities, and exams are being made more rigorous. We cannot afford to be left behind.
	In the last three years of the previous Government, reform went into reverse. Schools lost freedoms, the curriculum lost rigour and Labour lost its way. Now, under this coalition Government, we are once more travelling in the same direction as the most ambitious and progressive nations. Schools spending is rising, with more money for the poorest through the pupil premium; education reform is accelerating, with one new academy created every working day; and standards are being driven up, with teachers now supported to excel as never before.
	The programme we outline today affirms the importance of teaching at the heart of our mission to make opportunity more equal. There is no profession more noble, no calling more vital and no vocation more admirable than teaching. This White Paper gives us the opportunity to become the world's leading education nation, and I commend it to the House.

Andy Burnham: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for his courtesy in allowing me advance sight of the White Paper? It is just a shame that that happened 10 days after the  Financial Times and the rest of the nation's media were given such advance sight, and that Parliament was the last to know. We were promised new politics, and it is time the Government lived up to their words.
	I apply two clear tests to any education policy. First, will it help every school to be a good school? Secondly, will it help every child to be the best that they can be? While we welcome elements of this White Paper, I believe that it fails those fundamental tests. It is a plan for some children, not all children. The right hon. Gentleman will need to work hard to explain how his plan will not create a new generation of failing schools.
	Let me say where I think the Secretary of State is moving in the right direction. We welcome the retention of a floor target for secondary schools and his apparent change of heart on the role of targets in raising standards-building on Labour's successful national challenge programme. We welcome the expansion of Teach First, which we championed in government. Labour's legacy, according to Ofsted, was
	the best generation of teachers ever.
	We share his aim to have the best in the world. We also support anonymity for teachers who face accusations from pupils and some of his moves on discipline.
	However, the Secretary of State's overall drive is towards a two-tier education system. I support his focus on maths, English and science, where take-up doubled since 2004, but by making the entire focus five academic subjects, is he encouraging schools to focus only on those children who have a chance of achieving that particular batch of GCSEs? Is not there a huge danger that he is cementing the divide between academic and vocational qualifications, which educational professionals have worked so hard to remove?
	The risks of the Secretary of State's English baccalaureate becoming the gold standard by which schools are judged have been highlighted by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which states:
	Schools will have an incentive to focus extra resources on children likely to do well in those subjects, rather than on children receiving free school meals.
	Is not there a real risk that his pupil premium will not be spent on the children for whom it is intended? At a time when we all need to focus more on the 50% of young people who do not plan to go to university, is it not the case that he has very little to say to them today? His message is that a vocational route is second best, and that is unacceptable.
	Is there not a real danger that the combined effects of the Secretary of State's announcements today will be to create a new generation of failing schools? Is it not the case that some improving schools will see themselves plummet down the league tables, damaging morale and risking throwing progress into reverse? Many of those are the same schools that suffered from his decisions on Building Schools for the Future. What hope can he give them today of extra support to raise standards for all their children, both academic and vocational?
	The Secretary of State wants to make it easier for schools to exclude children, but who will have the responsibility of helping schools to pick up the pieces? Why is he ending the independent appeals panel for exclusions, which ensures fairness across a local education community? He has rightly placed a strong emphasis on teacher training, but is he not at risk of ignoring the advice of his experts? Ofsted said yesterday:
	There was more outstanding initial teacher education delivered by higher education-led partnerships than by school-centred initial teacher training partnerships and employment-based routes.
	Why, we might ask, is the right hon. Gentleman planning to end university-led teacher training for a schools-based model? Can he assure the House that that will not undermine the quality of teacher training and that it is not a move simply motivated by cutting costs? But is there not a much bigger contradiction? Today he lays down prescriptive standards for teaching training, but his message just days ago to free schools and academies was that they were free to employ unqualified teachers. Is he not mixing his messages and trying to have it both ways?
	All this exposes a major flaw in the right hon. Gentleman's thinking, which is repeated throughout the White Paper. Today he talks a good game on standards; on any other day he says to schools that they will have the freedom not to follow them. Which is it? He sounds confused. That is because his real focus is on potentially damaging structural reforms and he is prioritising competition above collaboration in the schools system. His talk on standards is undermined by his ideological obsession with structures. In his rush to reform, he is making mistakes that will damage our education system. He seems not to have learned from the mayhem that he caused with Building Schools for the Future. At the most crucial moment for sport in this country's history, on the eve of a home Olympics, why is he abandoning a school sport system that the Australians have called world-leading? Does that not embody his approach to education: competitive sport for the elite and forget about the rest?
	The right hon. Gentleman briefs newspapers that he will abandon the local authority role in school funding, but then tells the BBC the opposite. Did he rediscover localism last week, or did he cave in following a furious backlash from his friends in local government? Can he tell us today what role he envisages for local government over the long term? Will it have any powers of intervention in respect of free schools and academies? Is not his biggest mistake of all that he tells schools that their budgets are protected-thereby raising expectations-by continuing to mis-sell his pupil premium policy? It is a con: it is not additional, as the Prime Minister said today. Is it not the case that when schools receive their budgets in a couple of weeks, many in the most deprived areas will be the biggest losers and will simply not have the means to deliver on his fancy rhetoric today?
	In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman brings a lethal mix of incompetence and ideology to this crucial brief. Just because he believes in the teaching of history, it does not mean that he has to live in the past. He is in danger of bringing forward a plan for a fragmented and divided education system of winners and losers. He is in danger of creating a lost generation as a result of his elitist education system. He sits in his ivory tower, with nothing to say to young people who do not plan to go to university or whose hope is being cut by his Government-vocational studies downgraded; apprenticeships for young people frozen; the education maintenance allowance scrapped. He has a plan for some schools and some children, not for all schools and all children, and that is the fundamental flaw of his White Paper.

Michael Gove: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for that performance. Obviously at St Aelred's in Lancashire, where he was educated, drama was very well taught.
	May I thank the right hon. Gentleman on those areas where he agrees? I thank him for his support for ensuring a consensus in the House on the importance of floor standards. It is important that we also recognise that, as well as having clear levels of attainment, we will be judging schools on how well all children progress. The one change that we will be making to the way in which the national challenge operated under the previous Government is that schools in challenging circumstances, with pupils from difficult backgrounds, will be given additional understanding and support, and will be judged on how they make progress. That is a clear difference from the record under the previous Government, when one rule was applied inflexibly. We are applying it more sensitively.
	May I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the expansion of Teach First and for the statesmanlike way in which he approached the issue of discipline and granting teachers anonymity? I look forward to working with him and his Front-Bench colleagues on bringing forward an education Bill that makes good on those promises.
	However, may I express my surprise that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that children who are eligible for free school meals are unlikely to do well in science, language or history GCSEs? He specifically said that schools that concentrate on raising attainment in those subjects will not be spending money on children from poorer homes. Has that not been precisely the problem in our education system for three generations? Is not the automatic assumption that because someone is poor they cannot aspire, precisely the problem that we need reform to overcome? Is not the soft bigotry of low expectations alive and well, and beating in his heart? Is it not the case that when it comes to improving vocational education, it is this Government who are taking action?
	The right hon. Gentleman asked us what we were doing, but he had three hours to read the White Paper. I thought he would have noticed that we are increasing the number of technical schools and university technical colleges; I thought he would have noticed that we are increasing the number of studio schools, which deal specifically with vocational education; I thought he would have noticed that we have commissioned Professor Alison Wolf, the world leader on the future of vocational qualifications, to overhaul the ramshackle system that we inherited; I thought he would have noticed that thanks to the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning we are increasing the number of apprenticeships by 75,000. Vocational education is undergoing a renaissance under this Government, and it is typically grudging of the Labour party not to recognise that.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing for children who are excluded. Again, I thought he would have seen in the White Paper not only that we are trialling a new proposal whereby schools take responsibility for the children they exclude but that he would have noticed in the White Paper that we are deliberately commissioning extra, additional provision for excluded children from a wider range of organisations, and we are giving pupil referral units the chance to become academies, the chance to acquire appropriate heads, and the chance to turn round the lives of desperate children who need additional help. We have heard not a single word from him about what we can do to help those children, and not a single word of praise for the dedicated people who do so much to help them.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about competition rather than collaboration. Everywhere in the White Paper collaboration is incentivised, with more money for great head teachers who want to work with underperforming schools, more opportunities for federations, trusts and academies to help underperforming schools, and a culture of collaboration entrenched at its heart. But there is one area where I believe in more competition-I make no apology for it. I believe in more competition in team sports. It is wrong that after expenditure of more than £2 billion, only one child in five took part in regular competitive team sports under Labour. That melancholy trend will be reversed, thanks to the Government.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that our policy is for some schools, not all. I know that he, by his own estimation, went to an ordinary comprehensive in Lancashire.

Andy Burnham: Merseyside.

Michael Gove: I prefer the old counties. The good news about that comprehensive in Merseyside is that St Aelred's, where the right hon. Gentleman received such a great education, has this week applied to the Department for Education to embrace academy status. It is joining more than 340 schools that recognise the importance of academy freedoms. The people who taught him so well are now embracing coalition policies. Is it not about time he did as well?

Mr Speaker: In the light of the performance thus far from both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, I must remind the House that this is not a debate; it is a statement in which the Government set out their policy, and hon. Members question the Minister on that policy. That is the situation, and we must get back to it.

Dan Rogerson: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that there will be further cuts in bureaucracy for schools,. The Government have already started that, and it has been welcomed by head teachers. When it comes to exclusion, he talked about trialling ways of ensuring that schools retain responsibility for excluded pupils, which I also welcome. Will there be further recognition for schools that take in excluded pupils from other places to ensure that when they are assessed and the league tables are published, they receive recognition of their extra work?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is a passionate supporter of better care for children who have been excluded, and our proposal today will mean that any school that excludes a child will carry on with responsibility for funding its provision and for the attainment of that child. Head teachers will now have a direct stake in ensuring that every child who arrives at their schools is well treated throughout their school career. Schools that take excluded children also need recognition, and I will explore with my hon. Friend how to ensure that they receive the support and recognition that they deserve.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. Understandably, there is huge interest in this subject, so brevity from Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members alike is vital if we are to make progress.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State agree that it profits no one to pretend that there is a great divide between political parties when he makes a statement such as this? I congratulate him on taking on board many of the former Select Committee's recommendations on teaching, standards and much else, but does he not share with previous Labour Front Benchers some guilt that we never addressed the problems that Tomlinson highlighted. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has not addressed them, and that we funked them?

Michael Gove: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's typically statesmanlike words. I agree that there is significant consensus across the parties on the way forward. When he was chairman of the Select Committee he did a great job of pioneering ideas. It is right to look at Mike Tomlinson's arguments and to ensure that all children have a properly broad education. Our English baccalaureate will ensure that all children, whatever their background, have access to the best that has been thought and written academically, but we will also ensure that vocational qualifications that blend with the academic are of the highest quality. That is why we commissioned Alison Wolf, and why the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has done so much with the launch of his skills strategy last week to raise the prestige and esteem of vocational learning.

Graham Stuart: I believe that there can be consensus in the House, but it must be based on an acceptance that the present position is not good enough, that we must have higher aspirations for this country, that we must recognise that we have fallen behind our international competitors, and that we have seen the gap between rich and poor widen unacceptably.
	On international comparison, will my right hon. Friend explain how the Select Committee will be able to map and track that? Will there be a role for Ofsted-on which we are doing an inquiry-in providing information and checking the Government's progress?

Mr Speaker: I think we have the gist of the question.

Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee. There is a role for the Select Committee and there is a role for Ofsted. The White Paper specifically states that we want Ofqual, the exams regulator, to benchmark our exams against the world's best. The more data we have, the better. The White Paper also says that we will ensure that a sufficient number of schools take part in the international comparisons run by the OECD, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and other organisations. I am open to all ways of ensuring that we rigorously benchmark the performance of our schools and indeed our Schools Ministers.

David Blunkett: May I welcome those aspects of the White Paper that were directly cribbed from initiatives brought in from 1997? How does the Secretary of State justify the contradiction of being against targets but toughening them and introducing new ones, less prescription but more prescription, less central direction but more top-down diktats, and more freedom for some schools but direction and restriction for others? What form of geometry did he learn to square such circles?

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman not just for his question, but for his achievements as Secretary of State for Education. I have said it before, and I will repeat that he was an outstanding Education Secretary. One reason why he was so good was that he recognised that there is a time for central Government to play a role, and a time for them to let go. When he was Education Secretary, it was vital to tighten things up, particularly at the bottom, but, over time, he recognised that as the education system improved, we needed to let go more and more. We are saying that there should be a relentless focus on underperformance. We need tough standards for schools that are failing, but for those that can help there is, as Joel Klein said, a chance to liberate greatness rather than mandate it.

Conor Burns: What plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that when teachers are training more time is spent in the classroom than in the lecture theatre?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The example of teaching schools can reinforce the already high standards in many new entrants to the profession. We know that the best teachers are those who are intellectually capable, and those who learn from others. The best way to improve as a teacher is to observe great teachers and to be observed by great teachers. That is why we are moving towards a system of teaching schools, which replicates the virtues of teaching hospitals.

Liz Kendall: The Secretary of State has said today, as he has many times, that social mobility went backwards under Labour. Will he clarify whether that comment is based on the latest evidence from the London School of Economics in 2005, which found that social mobility was lower among those born in 1970 compared with 1958? If that is so, will he explain how he blames Labour for the decline in social mobility among people who were 27 when the previous Government were elected?

Michael Gove: That was a beautifully read question. We can see why the hon. Lady was such an effective special adviser to the former Deputy Prime Minister. I referred in my statement to one of the most telling statistics of all: the fact that, among our very poorest children-those who were eligible for free school meals-who had their entire education under Labour, fewer are now going to Oxford or Cambridge, where I believe the hon. Lady was fortunate enough to be educated. Those children are, I am afraid, the unhappy victims of a Labour education programme which, despite the efforts of Members such as the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), did not do enough to extend opportunity to the very poorest. When only 40 of our poorest children make it to Oxbridge-fewer than from Westminster, Eton or Winchester-no one can say that social mobility is right in this country.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: It is always a pleasure and a privilege for me to listen to the Secretary of State, but I am afraid we cannot have an essay in answer to every question. There simply is not time. I enjoy the content of his answers and his mellifluous tones, but there is not time. Shorter, please.

George Eustice: I welcome the emphasis that the Secretary of State has placed on science in schools. Does he agree that we need to do much more to inform pupils who are about to select their GCSE subjects of the value that science can add to their career? Does he also agree that we need to do more to inspire them about the sciences? I would like to commend to him the work of the Camborne science and community college, in partnerships with schools in Japan and Singapore. Perhaps he would like to come and see some of that work.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will.

Pat Glass: Does the Secretary of State agree that any reform should be evidence based, and that anything else is pure ideology? In the light of the chief inspector of schools' report published yesterday, which showed clearly that university-led initial teacher training was twice as likely to be good or outstanding as schools-led initial teacher training, will he now look at that matter again?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady has been an impressive lead Member for children's services and education in the past, and she speaks with authority. We are publishing an evidence paper to go alongside the White Paper-the first time that has happened-which will contain the evidence base for everything that we are doing. The expansion of teaching schools is based on research by the National Federation for Educational Research, which showed that they are outstanding in the work that they do.

Annette Brooke: I welcome many of the freedoms that are now being given to schools, but will the Secretary of State clarify one point for me? If a group of parents requested that a Sport for All programme should be continued, would the head teacher have the funds in his budget to continue such a programme?

Michael Gove: I absolutely believe so, as a result of the real terms increase in spending on education. Critically, by removing ring fences and giving heads more control over how they spend their money, the priorities that are dear to all of us, including sports, can be pursued.

Andrew Gwynne: In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned the changing role of the local education authority. Can he explain how he would deal with reluctant LEAs such as Liberal Democrat-controlled Stockport council, which is holding schools such as Reddish Vale technology college back from grasping his new agenda?

Michael Gove: I am very interested that Reddish Vale is keen to become an academy and to embrace the future, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. There is a huge variety of views across local government about the future of education, but I am encouraged that some of the most progressive and imaginative figures in local government are Liberal Democrat councillors. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Gerald Vernon-Jackson in Portsmouth and to David Bellotti in Bath and North East Somerset, among many others. I will visit Stockport and have a word with the Liberal Democrat councillors there, and I am sure that I will leave better informed and happier about the world.

Richard Fuller: There has been a teacher training institution in Bedford since 1882, and my right hon. Friend will be aware of the great work that the university of Bedfordshire does on teacher training for small schools in the eastern region, and on supporting further and continuing education for teachers. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that his proposals will reinforce, and not undermine, the excellent work being done by such institutions?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. We are going to say to all higher education institutions that are currently involved in the provision of initial teacher training that we want them to open lab schools, in the same way that such schools have been developed in Finland and the United States. Those schools are run by education departments and they act as showcases for the best in teacher training, and I believe that education departments here can grasp this opportunity. We are working with the Training and Development Agency to ensure that they have the resources to do so.

Mark Durkan: The Minister said in his statement that he wanted to bring back an emphasis on punctuation. However, his 10-page statement contains no more than 16 full stops. In the middle of the statement, we have to read nearly 300 words before we find a full stop, and at the end, there are more than 300 words before we find a full stop. How would the statement be marked under his system?

Michael Gove: I almost wish that the hon. Gentleman had not put a question mark at the end of that. All I can say is that my approach as a Minister has been to eat, shoot and leave when it comes to making a statement such as this.

Edward Timpson: I welcome the White Paper, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that the educational attainment of looked-after children remains woefully low. Will he meet me and other colleagues who have a particular passion for this subject, to discuss how, as we take the White Paper forward, we can come up with better support and better measures of the progression of looked-after children through education, to ensure that their outcomes in education, and in life in general, are vastly improved?

Michael Gove: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is vital that we ensure that the pupil premium follows looked-after children as well. We all need to recognise that care leavers need not only support after they leave school but focused interventions while they are at school. We will be doing everything possible in that regard, and I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this.

Lyn Brown: I represent one of the poorest boroughs in the country, and my head teachers are afraid that the introduction of the pupil premium will mean that they receive less money. Are they right to be afraid?

Michael Gove: The short answer is no. I am under the impression that Newham is an outer London borough and it will definitely benefit from the additional resources of the pupil premium. If it is in inner London, it will definitely benefit as well. The pupil premium will go- [ Interruption. ] Everyone will benefit, because there is more money overall.

Iain Stewart: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that he will prioritise action to tackle homophobic bullying, which terrorises many vulnerable young gay men and women. Will he set out his plans for this in a little more detail?

Michael Gove: I am delighted to do so. Homophobic bullying is on the rise in our schools, and homophobic terms are increasingly used towards gay students and straight students in a way that seeks to undermine the tolerance that we have built up over the past 15 years. We therefore need to work with organisations such as Stonewall and the Anti-Bullying Alliance, and to shine the light on schools such as St George's Church of England school, which has done a fantastic job in tackling homophobic bullying. This requires work not only by school leaders but by political leaders and all of society to tackle a growing prejudice that is scarring our tolerant society.

Helen Jones: Before the Secretary of State takes us on a headlong rush back to the 1950s, will he bear in mind that good teaching requires not only practical experience but an academic knowledge of how children learn? Can he tell us how much funding will be available to his new teacher training schools to ensure that students get that academic training? Will the money go directly to the schools, or will it be placed in the universities?

Michael Gove: More money will be available for teaching schools, and money will also be available for higher education institutions. I agree that it is important to recognise that teaching combines both IQ and EQ-emotional intelligence. Teachers need to have a grasp of their subject, but they also need to like children. Increasingly, I have found that it is through applying themselves to the craft of teaching in the presence of great teachers that they truly soar and inspire.

Mary Macleod: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on dealing with the overloaded, over-prescriptive and over-bureaucratic method of teaching that the previous Government allowed to be established? What is he doing to get rid of further red tape, as well as getting rid of the 4,000 pages of direction that the previous Government gave to all our teachers?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are removing bureaucracy at every point. Not only are we slimming down the national curriculum, but we have got rid of the self-evaluation form, which could run to more than 100 pages. We have also got rid of financial management standards in schools, which was another burden that head teachers said that they did not want. We are doing this because we believe in trusting heads to do their best for the children whom it is their mission to educate.

Nicholas Dakin: I fear that the Secretary of State knows as much about schools as he does about punctuation. Will he look again at the evidence that was given to the Select Committee about the 24-hour notice provision? Great teachers and great head teachers have given evidence, and they have consistently said that the removal of that provision would have a negative effect and risk safeguarding issues. No sensible head teacher would go down that route anyway.

Michael Gove: A great many sensible teachers and head teachers have applauded precisely that move. There is a philosophical difference between the hon. Gentleman's approach and my approach. When I say that we are no longer going to require something, that does not mean that we are saying to everyone, Under no circumstances do it. We believe in something called freedom, which means that it is up to individual teachers or head teachers to decide for themselves. It is called treating people like adults.

Nicky Morgan: I welcome the Secretary of State's emphasis on raising standards. In Leicestershire, however, we have a particular issue because we are one of the last counties to retain the middle school system. Local head teachers are telling me that this is holding back standards, particularly in GCSE results. Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss how best to move away from that system so that we drive up standards in Leicestershire, too?

Michael Gove: I believe in diversity and pluralism-different strokes for different folks. Middle schools do very well in some parts of the country. I know that the lead member for education in Leicestershire, Ivan Oulds, is one of the most impressive councillors in the country, and I look forward to talking to him, my hon. Friend and other colleagues to see what can be done to ensure that everyone is better off.

Tristram Hunt: May I urge Ministers to focus on the question of resits, which often work to the disadvantage of lower socio-economic groups and are at the root of grade inflation? I am also concerned about the thinking on modules. Modules at A-level work very well indeed, so I would be hesitant about rolling those back. Finally, I join my hon. Friends on the question of the importance of grammar and spelling. On that note, I must point to a grievous error on page 7, line 7 of the statement we were provided. The Secretary of State, of all people, should know how to spell bureaucracy!

Michael Gove: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point about bureaucracy. Whenever I see that word, a red mist descends over my eyes, so occasionally the finger slips on the keyboard. I also thank him for his points about GCSEs and A-levels. We are stripping away modules from GCSEs. With A-levels, although I favour in many cases a linear approach that encourages synoptic understanding of the subject, it remains for universities, learned bodies and schools to decide the best way forward. For some subjects, it is appropriate to have a modular approach at A-level.

Rob Wilson: May I welcome the White Paper, particularly the drive towards making schools independent entities? There has been a stampede towards academy status in my constituency, but will my right hon. Friend ensure a smooth transition to academy status in all areas of the country? I know that the shadow Secretary of State will be anxious to see his old school, St Aelred's, become an academy.  [ Interruption .]

Michael Gove: I am delighted that St Aelred's, as an outstanding school, is going to become an academy. I look forward to visiting the school with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), so that we can celebrate the superb education he received, along with the coalition's extension of more autonomy to more great schools.

Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State has spoken a great deal about the poorest, but he appears not to understand that no matter how much money is in the schools budget, it is the money in the family budget that matters so much. What would he tell the parents of the thousands of young people in my constituency about their prospects when the £30-a-week education maintenance allowance is cut by his budget?

Michael Gove: I am a great fan of the right hon. Lady, and I know how passionately she fights for her constituents in Lewisham. I also know that she is deeply concerned about differential attainment from poorer children. One thing we are doing with the education maintenance allowance is ensuring that it is effectively targeted on the very poorest. That is the thrust behind our whole review of education spending in order to make sure that more money-£2.5 billion-is spent through the pupil premium on the poorest, while also ensuring that an additional £150 million is spent on children from poor homes as they make a transition from school to university. We are also providing more money for pre-school learning for impoverished two-year-olds.

Tessa Munt: From my experience of working with adults with learning disabilities, I know that it quite common to encounter people who can read, but do not always have the right level of comprehension. I note that the White Paper refers to a reading check at the age of six. I would like to know a little more about that and to be assured that this means a test of comprehension as well as a reading test.

Michael Gove: The test designed for six-year-olds is there simply as a screening test to make sure that people are decoding fluently. Once children are decoding fluently, it is vital that they are well taught in order to encourage comprehension. Subsequent assessment throughout the primary school years can ensure just that.

Clive Efford: The Secretary of State makes a great deal of freeing good head teachers to make decisions. If such a head teacher were to say, under the new freedoms, that smaller class sizes and funding to match it were necessary-this is what everyone applying to open a free school in my area is saying-will they get the same sort of sympathetic hearing as those free school applicants are getting?

Michael Gove: Yes, and many schools that have applied for academy status have used the resources and the flexibility to reduce class sizes. Smaller class sizes are becoming a reality under the coalition Government.

David Davies: We have waited 13 long years for a Minister to bring in reforms that will truly drive up standards of education and behaviour. Now, some Members are saying that we are acting too hastily. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will bring in these measures as quickly as possible, the better to encourage the devolved regions such as Wales and Scotland to follow?

Michael Gove: Yes.

Emily Thornberry: I would like to ask a question on behalf of the many intelligent, highly motivated and well-informed youngsters-and their parents-who have a problem with dyslexia. They already face great challenges when it comes to learning a modern language. Their concern might be that the school would hold their difficulties against them because, if they have many dyslexic children, it might cause the school to fall in the standards league. My main question is this: in his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to restore the recognition of spelling in GCSE examinations. Will that not be a barrier for those dyslexic kids no matter how hard they try to pass the requisite number of GCSEs?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes a number of important points. Identifying dyslexia at the earliest possible stage is one of the reasons why we are introducing an appropriate check at the age of six. There are many other ways of identifying children who have special needs and require support. A number of interventions are in place to ensure that, at assessment time, children with dyslexia or specific learning difficulties can be supported through it. I absolutely agree that we can never stop trying to ensure that children who are living with dyslexia or other learning difficulties are better supported.

Stephen McPartland: I welcome the White Paper. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about his plans to improve underperforming schools?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know takes a keen interest in the educational attainment of poorer children. In addition to implementing the pupil premium, we are going to focus relentlessly on schools where attainment is low and progress is poor. I know that some schools will often take in children who have been poorly educated at primary level, but still make fantastic progress with them. I do not want those schools to be stigmatised and I do not want schools to be seen as failing, but where they are underperforming, we need to hold them to clear standards and provide additional financial support to help them achieve them. I am perfectly happy to say that this builds on an initiative that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and Lord Adonis helped to introduce. I take no pride in authorship: this was a good idea, and I am delighted to extend it.

Dave Watts: May I tell the Secretary of State that the decision of St Aelred's school in my constituency to go for academy status was made under the last Labour Government, not his Government? He has some responsibility, however, for blocking many of the rebuilding projects that were intended to take place. Will he take credit for that and offer to provide the much-needed resources? If we are to have a world-class education system, we need the schools to go with it.

Michael Gove: I look forward to visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency to congratulate St Aelred's on moving towards academy status. Of course, it was our Government and our legislation that allowed the school to make that transition to academy status with the speed, grace and support that the superb officials in the Department for Education accord to all schools that want to enjoy greater autonomy.

Andrew Selous: Does my right hon. Friend agree that schools fail children if they do not teach them an acceptable level of spelling and grammar? Does he further accept that it is the job of all teachers to ensure that that is the case and to correct work, where necessary?

Michael Gove: I could not agree more. Earlier today, it was a pleasure to visit the Durand primary school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), which does precisely that. The school also does a superb job of training new teachers to become outstanding leaders.

Derek Twigg: Will the Secretary of State explain his comment, where he says he will
	make GCSE performance tables more aspirational by judging schools on how well all students do-not just in English and maths but also science, modern languages and the humanities, like history and geography?
	Will he explain what that means in plain English?

Michael Gove: Yes, it means that instead of the performance tables that were used under the Labour Government, in which only English and maths and then any mixture of GCSEs were taken into account, we will, in future, have English, maths- [Interruption.] How many questions does the hon. Gentleman want to ask?
	I think I made my view clear in my response to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), but I am happy to have an opportunity to repeat it. I believe that it is wrong to assume that children from poorer backgrounds cannot pass GCSEs in modern foreign languages, science, history and geography. One of our problems in this country is that only 16% of young people achieve those five academic GCSEs, and only 4% of children eligible for free school meals do so. That is a scandal. The hon. Gentleman should be on our side: he should be trying to get the children in his constituency to learn, and to obtain the qualifications that will give them jobs in the future.

David Morris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent White Paper. What measures does it contain to protect teachers from false allegations made by disruptive pupils?

Michael Gove: It was a pleasure to meet teachers in my hon. Friend's constituency during the local election campaign two years ago. I know that they will welcome our proposals to ensure that investigations are speeded up when teachers face false allegations, and to ensure that they enjoy anonymity if such allegations are made. We will also tell head teachers that there should be no automatic suspension of teachers when they exercise legitimate authority in the classroom.

Ben Bradshaw: The Secretary of State's decision to axe funding for school sport partnerships will be extremely damaging to the fitness, health and attainment of our young people, as well as to our country's future sporting prowess. May I implore the right hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable man, to revisit that decision before he destroys the renaissance that school sport has experienced in the past few years?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he is a reasonable man as well. I am sure that we can work together in future to ensure that the additional resources that we are investing in education, and the additional emphasis on competitive team sport, provide every school with the support that it needs to give all children the physical education that they deserve.

Mark Lancaster: The new academy in Milton Keynes is a fantastic facility, but the fact that it has fewer places than the school that it replaced has had the unintended consequence of forcing another school in my constituency to become the de facto community school. How can we ensure a balance between the rights of schools to set their own admissions policies and the rights of parents to send their children to a local school?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend has asked an important question, to which I can give two answers. First, we are encouraging collaboration to enable more schools to join trusts or federations involving an outstanding school that is sponsored by an academy, so that excellence can be more evenly spread. Secondly, we are going to simplify the admissions code and give local authorities a clear role in policing it, in order to ensure that admissions are fair to all.

Bill Esterson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the entire £162 million grant to support school sport partnerships has been cut, not devolved into the main schools grant? Does he agree with the head teacher of Chesterfield high school in Crosby, who tells me that that will have a profound effect on his ability to form partnerships with primary schools and other secondary schools, and will reduce young people's participation in sport?

Michael Gove: Overall spending on schools has risen as a result of the comprehensive spending review.

Damian Hinds: I welcome the broadening of the base for the gold standard in GCSE attainment, but what can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that children who are far above that standard-and those in the most challenging circumstances who may be expected to fall quite far below it-are also fully stretched and given the encouragement that they need, and how can schools' efforts in that regard be fully recognised?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. Along with Ofqual and others, we will ensure that our examinations are as rigorous as the world's best, so that children who are truly talented receive that support. Some children may not be able to access GCSEs, although I imagine that many more will be able to pass them: that is what we expect, and that is what those in other countries succeed in doing. We are working with Alison Wolf on qualifications that will ensure that every child's achievement and hard work are recognised.

Meg Munn: Requiring 24 hours' notice for detention does not in any way undermine discipline, but once that rule goes, teenagers could well tell their parents that they must stay behind for detention when in fact they have been inveigled into meeting abusers who have groomed them on the internet. I say seriously to the Secretary of State that removing that rule will put children at risk, and I am sure that he does not want to do that. Will he reconsider, and talk to children's organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children?

Michael Gove: We take child protection amazingly seriously. We are working with the Council for Internet Safety and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre to ensure that we are doing everything that is necessary to protect children from online grooming. However, I do not see how giving teachers more control over discipline can undermine the safety of all children.

Sam Gyimah: Too often kids go to school with the wrong attitude, and spend a great deal of their time in the classroom being disruptive. What specific steps will my right hon. Friend take to restore discipline in the classroom, so that teachers can focus on teaching and enabling kids to learn rather than on managing disruptive pupils?

Michael Gove: We are going to change the rules on search, on the use of appropriate force and, as I have said, on detention, but, critically, we are going to ensure that children learn to read properly at primary school. The problems involving disruptive children at secondary school are often due to the fact that they have not been taught to read. When they arrive at secondary school the curriculum is too stretching, and unfortunately they act up rather than learning. That is a tragedy, and it needs to be addressed at a very early stage.

Ann Coffey: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he wanted parents to choose schools rather than schools choosing parents. I am sure that many parents share that sentiment, but will he clarify the changes that he will make in the way in which local education authorities set admission limits for individual schools in order to ensure that that choice is available?

Michael Gove: I thank the hon. Lady for a typically thoughtful question. We will work with local authorities, individual schools and others to revise the admissions code in order to achieve exactly the aim that she has described.
	I recognise that when it comes to admissions, one of the problems is rationing access to good schools. I want to ensure that there are more good schools, so that more parents can receive the education that they deserve for their children. Sometimes there are difficult decisions to be made, and in those circumstances we need clear rules that are rigorously enforced in order to provide fairness. I want to ensure that there is buy-in from everyone to guarantee that fairness.

Craig Whittaker: I welcome the White Paper, but will my right hon. Friend elaborate on his plans to replicate the teaching hospital model in education and to create teaching schools?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Teaching schools that are the embryo for our model are currently operating in Manchester, London and the black country. The National Foundation for Educational Research has described them as an outstanding model for how we can improve teaching. I think it critical for us to raise the prestige of the teaching profession and the esteem in which it is held so that it ranks with medicine, architecture or law as an aspirational profession that is entered by the very best of our graduates, and I believe that this is a step along the way.

Angela Smith: Local head teachers tell me that they have recruited their best ever generation of newly qualified teachers from our local universities, so I am glad that the Secretary of State has confirmed that universities will have a continuing role in training teachers. Will he also confirm that he will not fund the new teaching schools by cutting the higher education budget even further?

Michael Gove: The higher education budget is the province of my colleagues the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), and the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts). We support higher education through the money that is spent by the Training and Development Agency for teachers. We want to ensure that that money is spent on attracting more highly qualified people into teaching, and in the next few months we will present proposals explaining exactly how we will support high-performing institutions, whether they are higher education institutions or schools.

Robin Walker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent White Paper and especially on the pupil premium, which will benefit many people in my constituency. Christopher Whitehead language college in my constituency, which is an outstanding school, is shortly to launch Mandarin classes. Will the Secretary of State expand on what the White Paper offers to improve the depth, breadth and quality of language teaching in our schools?

Michael Gove: I have been working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that we can help more people studying modern languages, particularly Mandarin and strategic subjects, into teaching. I was fortunate enough to be in China with my right hon. Friend two weeks ago, when we received funding from the Confucius Institute to ensure that there will be 1,000 new trained teachers of Mandarin, and that the fantastic work being done in the school in my hon. Friend's constituency is spread more widely.

Tony Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State add to the guarantee that he seemed to give earlier that no school would lose as a result of the pupil premium? Will he give me a guarantee that no inner-city school in Manchester will suffer either a relative or an absolute loss of funding as a result of his proposals?

Michael Gove: No school will suffer as a result of our proposals. It will, of course, be for Manchester as a local authority to decide, when it receives its funding, how it will allocate it in consultation with its schools forum. Some schools-this happens every year-have declining rolls and sometimes have to adjust their budgets because of that, but the pupil premium itself means more money, particularly for the poorest.

Paul Uppal: In 1950s Kenya, my father received an education that covered the writings of Chaucer and Shakespeare as well as British history. Does the Secretary of State not find it ironic that many students in modern Britain are given a less comprehensive education in British history than many students in 1950s Kenya?

Michael Gove: That is a striking piece of personal testimony, and my hon. Friend and his father stand as powerful witnesses of the importance of recognising that we should not shy away from expecting children from all backgrounds to be stretched and tested by being introduced to the best that has been thought and written. Those high aspirations are embodied in this White Paper but, sadly, they were undermined by the response of the right hon. Member for Leigh.

Ian Mearns: Despite the answers the Secretary of State has given today, there is still great concern that some schools could lose out as a result of the consolidation of the standards funds granted to schools into the direct school grant, and the formula distribution of that. Can he give an absolute guarantee that that will not be the case?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman was a lead member for children's services in Gateshead, which has a fantastic local authority, and he knows that local authorities sometimes have to make difficult decisions. I believe they will make the right decisions. We are providing them with more money for schools. I hope they use it wisely, and I am sure they will.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen the television programme about the experiment at Pear Tree Mead primary school in my constituency? It showed Gareth Malone transforming the literacy skills of young male adults. Given that more than 30% of our young people leaving primary school cannot read, what measures are there in the White Paper to improve literacy skills, and will my right hon. Friend look at projects such as that at Pear Tree Mead?

Michael Gove: It was a great programme, and Gareth Malone is a star. Improving literacy is important, but it is also important to ensure that all primary school children have access to excellent cultural activities that can help them to enjoy and achieve.

Paul Blomfield: Two weeks ago I presented prizes at Silverdale school, a successful school in the Deputy Prime Minister's constituency which draws in many kids from inner-city areas of my constituency. The Secretary of State talks about taking advice from teachers, so will he accept their advice that their work to transform the life chances of kids such as many in my constituency will be deeply damaged by the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance?

Michael Gove: I, too, have been fortunate enough to visit some of the outstanding schools in Sheffield, some of them supported by the outstanding leadership shown by the Liberal Democrat councillors on Sheffield council.  [Interruption.] No, they have been very good actually.  [Interruption.] No, they have been very impressive-a lot more impressive than councillors on many Labour local authorities-and I will work with them to ensure that funding is targeted on the very poorest, so that the hon. Gentleman's constituents get the education they deserve.

Margot James: Oxford and Cambridge universities recruit more students from Westminster school and Eton college than from the entire body of pupils qualifying for free school meals. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the many measures he is taking to address both that iniquity and many others that beset our education system. Will he tell us more about his plans to reduce exam grade inflation and to improve opportunities to attain core academic knowledge?

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I have had the great pleasure of visiting a sixth-form college in her constituency, which, using its autonomy, does a superb job in raising standards for children from a variety of backgrounds. There should be no compromise on academic excellence. That is why we are asking Ofqual to benchmark our exams against the world's best.

Yvonne Fovargue: Given the intention to expand the use of traditional uniforms in schools and the fact that only a minority of local authorities provide grants for school uniforms, what support will be made available for already overstretched parents to meet the extra costs involved?

Michael Gove: One of the many things the last Government did that was wise was to recognise that it is important that support is given to all schools in order to ensure children have access to high-quality school uniforms. In many cases a high-quality school uniform is not only a shrewd investment for the parent, but a wise choice for the school in building a sense of corporate identity. We want to make sure that the cost of uniforms is never a barrier to a child accessing a school, and the admissions code specifies that.

Gavin Barwell: I welcome the White Paper's focus on the fundamental importance of the quality of teaching. My right hon. Friend spoke about what the Government will be doing to recruit the best and to improve teacher training. Will he say a bit more about what the White Paper has to offer existing teachers in my constituency and throughout the country in terms of continuing professional development and flexibility in terms and conditions?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes two very good points. It is crucial that we support our existing teachers to do even better. As a number of Members have said, we have a great current crop of teachers in our schools, but the best way they can improve is through making sure they have a chance to observe the best and to be observed, and that is one of the reasons why we are scrapping the so-called three-hour rule, which serves to limit observation of great teaching.

David Rutley: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. Will he say a little more about his plans for teaching schools, and in particular how they will better support the schools around them?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The teaching schools that we will establish must act as hubs and serve as an exemplar of how teachers can be trained for all schools in their area. At present, we have that model of teaching school in embryo in Manchester, the black country and London. We want to spread them, so as to ensure that in the south-west, the south-east and the north-east there are more great and outstanding schools providing that sort of support.

Jonathan Lord: I welcome the White Paper. Is my right hon. Friend aware that pupils can pass a GCSE in English without reading a novel? What will he do about that?

Michael Gove: We are working with the exams regulator, Ofqual, to make sure our exams are as rigorous as those in the world's most demanding education jurisdictions. It is vital that we encourage more people in this country to read fiction- [Interruption.]-and I am sure the right hon. Member for Leigh has already thought of all sorts of quips that he will be only too happy to use against me as a result of my having made that comment.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Pincher.

Christopher Pincher: Thank you, Mr Speaker; clearly, I am moving up the batting order in this particular sport.
	In welcoming my right hon. Friend's White Paper, may I ask him to encourage greater vertical integration between primary and secondary schools? One issue that teachers in Tamworth have raised with me is the number of primary school children who do not have the necessary reading and writing skills when they move on to secondary school, and we need to improve that.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is bang on the button, and one of the reasons why we are establishing primary academies and integrating primary schools into academy chains is to deal with precisely that issue. The last Government said the creation of primary academies would send a chill down the spine of every parent, but actually the creation of many new primary academies has meant that parents enjoy smaller class sizes and higher standards and children better prepared for the world of work and further learning. This is a reform that I hope every party represented in the House will now support.

Mr Speaker: I call Rehman Chishti.

Rehman Chishti: Last but not least.
	I welcome the statement as representing an excellent way forward. Will the anonymity for teachers who are the subject of false accusations last until conviction?

Michael Gove: The intention is that anonymity should last until charging. We do not want to interfere with the way the courts operate, but we do want to ensure that teachers who may face vexatious or mischievous allegations are protected. That is crucial, and I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Leigh will support us in bringing forward that measure.

Points of Order

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that during Prime Minister's Question Time my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) asked the Prime Minister about the mobility component of disability living allowance for those in residential accommodation and the Government's plans for people in those circumstances. The Prime Minister said in reply that the official Opposition supported the Government's position. I observed that the Prime Minister was being advised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I recall that the Chancellor made the same comment to the House at Treasury questions a week or so ago. I seek your advice on the following point, Mr Speaker. The fact is that my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues assured me right up until when the last statement was being made that that is not the policy of the official Opposition, and that we are utterly opposed to it-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). He is an extremely experienced and assiduous Member and I was waiting expectantly, with bated breath and beads of sweat upon my brow, for the point of order he was going to raise, and I think we have now just about reached it, except that it is not a point of order. It is, I think, a point of debate, at which the right hon. Gentleman is very adept, but I am afraid we will have to leave it there. There is nothing on which I need to rule, although it is always a pleasure to hear from the right hon. Gentleman.

Ian Mearns: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that, like me, you are very concerned when Ministers widely trail announcements prior to their being made in this House. I cannot recall a more widely trailed ministerial statement than the one just made by the Secretary of State for Education. The statement and the White Paper have been extensively trailed in the newspapers over the past four or five days-I have many examples here. I know that you are against that practice, so I wonder whether you would like to comment.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, I believe very strongly, on behalf of the House, that statements of policy should be made first to this House and not through the media. He will appreciate that I keep a very attentive eye on these matters and I seek to perform the role of a detective such as I am able; I am always on the lookout for decisive evidence. But as to the specifics of today, I have nothing to add. I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I have his interests at heart-I hope he will realise that-and these matters are continually under review. If there are no further points of order-

Andy Burnham: rose-

Mr Speaker: The shadow Secretary of State cannot resist.

Andy Burnham: I cannot. Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You asked for evidence. The  Financial Times was given drafts of the White Paper and I can supply that evidence to you. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) is right that on this occasion there seems to have been a widespread breach of your stricture about making announcements first to this House. I will provide that evidence, but I would be grateful if you would then raise this matter with the Government.

Mr Speaker: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no desire to quibble with him or any other Member, but I did not ask for evidence; I simply said that I am always on the lookout for the evidence, which is not quite the same thing. I think that the matter must be parked for today. I have referred previously to the fact of the Procedure Committee inquiry into statements, to which he and other of his colleagues, and other Members from across the House, might wish to submit evidence. The matter will be kept, on an ongoing basis, under review. If he wants to bring to me particular instances of alleged abuse, he can do so. But for today, that must not be done on the Floor of the Chamber, but on another occasion. If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion; the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) has been patiently awaiting her opportunity.

Epilepsy and Related Conditions (Education and Health Services)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.  23  )

Valerie Vaz: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require action plans to be prepared for the provision of education and health services for children and adults with epilepsy and related conditions; to make provision about support for children and adults with epilepsy and related conditions; and for connected purposes.
	Let me offer the following words to the House: complex, fascinating and unique. I could be talking about us and the spouses and partners of hon. Members, but I am describing the human brain, which is at the centre and the focus of epilepsy and other related conditions, such as non-epileptic seizures. The human brain is the most complex organ in the living world. It contains 10 billion neurones, which cause seizures if they fire excessively. Sometimes there are structural and genetic reasons for such seizures and sometimes they are idiopathic, which means that there are no known causes.
	As a society, we are failing children and adults with these conditions. Today I hope to persuade the Government to support my Bill, which proposes an action plan in health and education that is big on impact and low on costs, but could lead to savings in the short and long term and, more importantly, could save lives. With a swish of the Secretary of State's pen, this could lead to benefits to society, both economic and general, and to many individuals with epilepsy, whose lives are adversely affected by poor health or education provision.
	Nearly 500,000 people in the UK have epilepsy-that is one in every 131 people-and so in an average constituency 705 people will have it. Many of them will struggle throughout their lives with stigma, unemployment and fear. They look to our NHS to support them, but it fails them. There are centres of excellence throughout the country, and Britain leads the world in epilepsy research, but unfortunately we are lagging well behind in practice. The tragic part is that, on average, three people a day die of epilepsy-related causes and one of those three deaths every day is avoidable with good treatment. Four hundred people are therefore dying needlessly each and every year, which is more than the total of AIDS-related deaths and cot deaths combined. The death rate in Britain is about 25% higher than the median for the EU, and these deaths are particularly tragic because the greatest risk is in the 16 to 35 age bracket. That figure of 400 represents nearly two thirds of the people in this Chamber; there would be an outcry if something affected two thirds of this Chamber every year, but these deaths go unnoticed.
	The first challenge is diagnosis, and the failure rate is alarming. Studies show a misdiagnosis rate of 20 to 31%, with one study of childhood epilepsy showing a rate of 40%. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines require a specialist to make the diagnosis and a first specialist appointment to take place within two weeks of a seizure. Without a diagnosis, there can be no treatment. The patient can experience many negative events with severe consequences, including death, before they are even seen by the specialist and treated. A recent survey of NHS trusts published in January 2009 by Epilepsy Action showed that more than 90% failed to meet the two-week deadline, and it is the patient who has been paying the price.
	For many, the misdiagnosis continues for decades, and doctors prescribe different drugs on a trial-and-error basis. What is required is a tertiary referral to a specialist who can get the diagnosis right. It is estimated that an extra 20% of people with epilepsy could be seizure-free with the right treatment. In England alone, that would translate to a massive 69,000 more people free of seizures and able to play a full part in society. Tertiary referral is also needed to establish who can benefit from surgery, which can cure epilepsy in some people. It is estimated that only 25% of children who could benefit from surgery get access to it.
	The medical costs alone of misdiagnosis are estimated at more than £22 million each year: every mistreated patient calls on our overstretched NHS, as general practitioner visits, repeated hospitalisations and generalist consultant time are absorbed. GPs should be able to refer directly to an epilepsy specialist, rather than to a secondary generalist. Other vital issues to address include: the employment of life-enhancing and cost-saving epilepsy specialist nurses; the low level of epilepsy specialist neurologists; and the many people who have been wrongly diagnosed with epilepsy and spend the rest of their lives taking powerful drugs with serious side effects for no good reason.
	I shall now discuss education and why we need an action plan to support our children. The following extract from the 1978 Warnock report on special education remains as valid today as it was at the time:
	many children with epilepsy may have serious problems in concentration and behaviour, which affect their learning....Their particular difficulties are not always recognised by schools and colleges, and better arrangements for reviewing their progress are needed....if these children are to be helped to develop their potential to the full.
	The actions proposed by Warnock still need implementation. Approximately 40,000 children with epilepsy are in mainstream schools, and about half of all children with epilepsy are underachieving in relation to their intellectual ability. Epilepsy is defined by the Department for Education as being a purely medical condition in the same category as asthma and diabetes, but that comparison is flawed. With the proper management of medication, a large majority of children with diabetes and asthma have little or no education or behavioural challenges, whereas that is not the case for children with epilepsy. Epilepsy is a medical condition that frequently has an impact on learning, well-being and behaviour; it is more akin to autism.
	There is no reference to epilepsy in the Department for Education's key special educational needs document. That lack of recognition hampers teachers as it results in a failure to provide advice or to recognise that sometimes epilepsy can take on the form of absences, where children literally space out. Professor Brian Neville, former Prince of Wales chair of childhood epilepsy, has said:
	As well as the potential for seizures to make the child miss lessons, epilepsy can cause short and long-term memory problems, difficulties with concentration and information retention. Often teachers don't fully understand why a child may appear to lack effort or attention and achieve poorly. Variable behaviour can be misinterpreted as being wilful.
	Even where the children are on drugs, those often have a side effect. Whereas those with mild dyslexia are afforded extra time in examinations, children with a diagnosis of epilepsy or a history of non-epileptic seizures are not afforded that, nor are they given any attention.
	The Department needs to recognise epilepsy as a special educational need and to recognise that it can affect those with higher than average intellectual ability who may only be achieving at a comparatively low level. To give children with epilepsy and related conditions an individual assessment to establish what support they need would involve the average secondary school undertaking only one assessment a year. Without that assessment, it is impossible to know how best to support a child with epilepsy or related conditions so that the legal duty to them is satisfied-that is, that reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that they are not placed at a disadvantage in education or other services. Such a move would anticipate where the barriers to learning would lie and take action to remove them.
	In this way, people can fulfil their potential like other high-profile people with epilepsy-they can become the next Dostoevsky, and can write poetry like Lord Byron or beautiful songs like Neil Young. We owe it to all those people whose deaths could have been avoided and who never reached their promise. I ask the House and the Government to support an action plan for tertiary referral in health and an annual assessment in education to save the needless loss of life and to enable our children and adults to fulfil their hopes and dreams.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Valerie Vaz, Mr David Amess, Jeremy Corbyn, Mrs Mary Glindon, Mr Sam Gyimah, Paul Maynard, Steve McCabe, Grahame M. Morris, Pamela Nash, Bob Russell, Laura Sandys and Owen Smith present the Bill.
	Valerie Vaz accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 4 March and to be printed (Bill 112).

FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A( 7 )),
	That the Order of 13 September 2010 (Fixed-term Parliaments Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	(1) in paragraph 2, for two days there shall be substituted three days;
	(2) in paragraph 4, for at the moment of interruption on the second day there shall be substituted three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the third day.-( James Duddridge.)
	 Question  agreed to.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

[Relevant documents: The  Second Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee,  Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, HC 436, and the Government's response thereto,  Cm 7951 .]

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Mr Nigel Evans  in the Chair]

Clause 1
	  
	Polling days for parliamentary general elections

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 307, Noes 229.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	  
	Early parliamentary general elections

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment 33, page 1, line 22, leave out from 'if' to end of clause and add
	'on an address presented to Her Majesty by the House of Commons praying that a day be the polling day for an early parliamentary general election, Her Majesty appoints this day by proclamation to be the polling day for such an election.
	(2) No motion shall be made for such an address except by the Prime Minister acting with the agreement of-
	(a) the Leader of the Opposition; and
	(b) each member of the House of Commons who at the time of the motion being made is the registered leader of a registered party that received more than 20 per cent. of the total votes cast at the previous parliamentary general election.
	(3) An early parliamentary general election shall not otherwise take place.
	(4) Subsection (1) applies for the purposes of the Timetable in rule 1 in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.
	(5) In this section-
	Leader of the Opposition means the person who is the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons for the purposes of section 2 of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975;
	registered leader, in relation to a party, means the person registered as that party's leader in accordance with section 24 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000;
	registered party means a party registered in a register of political parties maintained by the Electoral Commission in accordance with section 23 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.'.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 21, page 2, line 2, leave out 'early' and insert 'immediate'.
	Amendment 4, page 2, leave out lines 3 to 7.
	Amendment 34, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out '(6)'.
	Amendment 35, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out '(6)'.

Eleanor Laing: Once again, I bring to the Chamber the apologies of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, for his absence. He is, unfortunately, unable to be here, but I assure hon. Members that he is probably watching proceedings and that he will be better soon. He is still carrying out his duties as Chairman, but it is difficult for him to be here in the Chamber.
	I am pleased to move the amendment tabled by the Select Committee, or at least some members of it. It concerns the House's procedure for determining the way in which an early election can be called. I, personally, do not support its wording and I shall not insist on putting it to a vote, and if others do so, I shall not vote for it. There is nothing wrong with that, as I am merely moving it. It forms an important part of the Select Committee's pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and, as such, it should be put before the Committee so that it can be properly discussed.
	The amendment reflects some of the arguments that were heard during the Select Committee's inquiry into the Bill. I simply wish to ensure that hon. Members have the chance to examine these important issues. The amendment proposes an alternative way of bringing about what the Government seek to achieve in clause 2. It does not oppose the Bill's aims in any way, but simply proposes an alternative that hon. Members should consider.
	As an alternative form, the amendment would have three advantages. First, it would avoid the risks involved in implementing the Government's proposal that a two thirds majority should be required for a vote to have effect. Secondly, it would avoid what the Committee described as the uncertain consequences of the provisions in the Bill on motions of no consequence- [ Laughter. ] That was a visual rather than a grammatical problem, and if the Committee will forgive me, I shall try again. I meant to say motions of no confidence, which would include the possibility of a Government
	subverting the purpose of the Bill by tabling and voting for a motion of no confidence in itself in order to trigger an early general election without the need for a super-majority.
	Thirdly, the amendment would largely deal with the concern of the Clerk of the House, articulated to the Select Committee, that this part of the Bill would infringe the House's exclusive cognisance over its own proceedings-its right to decide for itself how its business should be done, and the concomitant principle that the courts will not interfere. When the Clerk told us of his concerns, we shared them, so tabling the amendment allows us to consider those real and well-founded concerns. I am aware that other amendments that we shall discuss this afternoon would deal with the situation in different ways, but amendment 33 proposes a simpler way of getting around those concerns. It would ensure that an early general election could take place only with cross-party support.

Richard Shepherd: I am sorry to intervene at such an early stage of my hon. Friend's comments, but I notice that proposed new subsection (2)(b) states that
	each member of the House of Commons who at the time of the motion being made is the registered leader of a registered party that received more than 20 per cent. of the total votes cast at the previous parliamentary general election.
	Those are the people who are supposed to decide whether there will be a confidence motion. What does my hon. Friend feel about the fact that the proposal will disfranchise the representatives of between 3.5 million and 4 million people?

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, and I find myself in some difficulty. I am happy to respond to it, but of course I agree with it. I am proposing the amendment not because I am passionate about it, but simply so that the Committee can discuss it. He is right to raise one of the issues that should be discussed. I take it that he means people who are represented by parties such as the nationalist parties. In that respect, if the amendment were accepted by the Committee and by the Government and if it became part of the Bill, I would find myself wishing further to amend it, to the effect that the parties concerned should be those that received more than 20% of the vote in the nation in the United Kingdom where their candidates stood for election. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's question. However, I do not think we need to go into that in much greater detail.
	The amendment provides that an early general election would take place only when the House agreed by a simple majority to a motion in the name of the Prime Minister, tabled with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of any political party that had received more than 20% of the national vote at the previous general election, with the extra proviso that I have just added in response to my hon. Friend's well-made point.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Lady may not be aware of this, but my recollection is that the Scottish Conservatives did not receive 20% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election. Is she saying, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) would not be able to take part in that process?

Eleanor Laing: No, not at all. I appreciate the political point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make, but that would make no difference because the Conservative party throughout the United Kingdom as a whole obtained considerably more than 20% of the popular vote, and in some places, such as Epping Forest-I am very pleased to say-a mere 54%. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point, but it would be a pity to take up the time of the Committee looking in detail at the percentages involved. My purpose in putting the issue before the Committee is to address the serious concerns relating to exclusive cognisance, which were put to the Select Committee by the Clerk, whose opinion on the matter we take very seriously. The Committee, too, should esteem the Clerk's opinion and recognise his concerns, and this is an opportunity for Members to consider them.

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Lady aware of the various bids for independence from Conservatives south of the border made from time to time by Conservatives in Scotland? The point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) might hold: the proposals could lead to the exclusion of the solitary, lonely Scottish Conservative figure on the Government Benches.

Eleanor Laing: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to stand up for my right hon. Friend, as I do frequently, but my right hon. Friend is not, of course, the leader of a political party in the House. The Prime Minister is leader of the Conservative party, with a large proportion of the popular vote throughout the country behind him, and undertakes that task very well indeed.

George Howarth: I am filled with admiration at the extent to which the hon. Lady is managing to disagree with herself. Could she return to the question put by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), and the legitimate point that there will be parties that receive significantly less than the threshold that she proposes, and will thus have no voice in the process? That cannot be democratic.

Eleanor Laing: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He is right, too, in his first point:
	Frailty, thy name is woman.
	I can disagree with myself or anyone else when called to do so. If it is my duty, I can be-well, I think we will leave that aside.

Chris Bryant: Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate that line from Shakespeare, too.
	The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) is correct. There is some difficulty with the arithmetic threshold set out in the amendment, but there is also a matter of principle, and on this point I will argue with myself-or rather I will, as an individual, disagree with the relevant part of the Select Committee report. I think the correct democratic process is to consult the House as a whole, not merely the leaders of particular parties in the House. There is then a problem in defining how the democratic process should work when the House is considering consulting the leaders of political parties. If there was a party that had only one Member, one leader and a very small proportion of the vote, it would be ignored and that does not quite work.

Peter Soulsby: I commend the hon. Lady for the excellent job that she is doing in putting forward an amendment with which she is not in entire agreement. As she told the House, she is making it on behalf of the Select Committee, of which I am also a member, and it expresses the concern that we heard from the Clerk about the way in which the Government's proposals might be subject to challenge in the courts, were they to go forward unamended. Will she join me in hoping that when the Minister responds, he will be able to give an assurance that the Clerk's concerns have been taken into account, and that any process that was followed under the Bill would not be subject to such challenge?

Eleanor Laing: That is precisely the point. I thank the hon. Gentleman both for putting it so succinctly, and for putting his name to the amendment so that I am not alone in disagreeing with myself. The point that he made is the crux of the matter, and I am sure the Minister has picked that up and has already considered it. I have every confidence that he will respond to it in a short time.

Nigel Dodds: To reinforce the hon. Lady's opposition to her own amendment, it should be pointed out that under proposed new subsection (2)(b) of the amendment, it is not necessarily the case that the registered leaders of all the registered parties are Members of the House. The First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Northern Ireland, who are the registered leaders, are not Members of the House. That is another reason why the amendment is flawed.

Eleanor Laing: Indeed. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Once again, the details of proposed new subsection (2)(b)-that is not
	To be, or not to be
	-we are going back in again! I do not think we need any more Shakespeare, and I will be called to order if I go any further down that road.
	The matters identified by the right hon. Gentleman would have to be considered in more detail if the amendment were to become part of the Bill. I predict that the Minister will not accept it. As I said, I hope not, because I would have to vote against it and as the House knows, I am uncomfortable voting against my Government and the Minister. The amendment does not have to become part of the Bill, but the points made to the Select Committee by the Clerk of the House are serious and important, and the House will wish to be reassured that the Minister has considered them.

Richard Shepherd: But is not the difficulty for my hon. Friend and those on behalf of whom she is promoting the amendment that they have put it in a statutory form, whereas the Clerk's solution was that it should be in the form of Standing Orders of the House? To read across is not possible. On the face of it, the amendment looks absurd, so I am puzzled why it is even before the House.

Eleanor Laing: Let me explain further. The Select Committee rushed through its pre-legislative scrutiny process, because of the timetable for the publication of the Bill, Second Reading and Committee. Inevitably, the Select Committee had to take evidence and consider matters quickly and briefly. It is important that the issues considered by the Select Committee are put before the House. I have every confidence that the Minister will assure the House in due course that he and his colleagues have considered all the points made in the pre-legislative scrutiny report by the Select Committee.

Mark Durkan: This is not about subsection (2)(b). If it would assist the hon. Lady in arguing against her own amendment, does she recognise that other amendments that she has tabled, such as amendment 37, if accepted, would create a serious problem in relation to amendment 33? That rests on the Prime Minister discharging a particular function, whereas under amendment 37 there could be circumstances in which there was no Prime Minister to discharge that function.

Eleanor Laing: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right. We will debate amendment 37 in the next group, and I am sure I will be called to order if I go into the details of it at this point.
	Once again, I am not seeking, and the Select Committee was not seeking, to put forward a coherent succession of amendments in an attempt to change the Bill. I want to make sure that the Committee has an opportunity, as it has now had, to consider the issues of exclusive cognisance and the way in which the Standing Orders of the House will be affected by the Bill. That is why I hope the Committee's Chairman will excuse me arguing against myself, while putting the points that the Select Committee wished to make here. It is important that the results of the pre-legislative scrutiny that we undertook should be put before the Committee.

Peter Soulsby: On pre-legislative scrutiny and the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), does the hon. Lady agree that the fundamental problem with the amendment is that it was tabled in the absence of time for adequate pre-legislative scrutiny, and that it is very much a second-best? The point about the preference of the Clerk for the matter to be dealt with in the Standing Orders of the House ought to have been given more time and more consideration, and there should have been an opportunity for the Committee to consider that as an alternative to the amendment.

Eleanor Laing: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. I recognise that that is why he put his name to the amendment. It is a pity that we have not had an opportunity in some other way to go into these matters. However, I reiterate that the Committee has an opportunity now to consider matters relating to exclusive cognisance and the Standing Orders. I hope the Committee will take that opportunity, but I have every confidence that the Minister will also take the opportunity to reassure us. Amendment 33 is merely an alternative that I put before the Committee for consideration.

Jack Straw: Since my elevation to the Back Benches six weeks ago, I have put a number of supplementary questions by way of interventions. This is the first time that I have spoken from the Back Benches in 23 years.
	It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who represents my home area, Loughton in Essex, where from a very early age I used to be sent out delivering leaflets and canvassing against the local Conservative party, never to any effect. My mother continued to represent the area in which we lived, first on the district council and later on the town council, until she was in her 80s. Thankfully, she is still alive.
	I have witnessed many occasions when a Member has moved an amendment that they do not understand. Indeed, I can think of one occasion 30 years ago on the Finance Bill when I moved an amendment that I did not understand-an embarrassment made worse by the fact that it was I who had drafted it. For the life of me, I could not work out what it meant, although I am pleased to say that officials in the Treasury, as it turned out-the Minister later showed me his briefing-had gone through all sorts of intellectual contortions to guess at that piece of total gibberish. Never before have I heard an hon. Member from either side of the House move an amendment with which they profoundly disagreed, but I admire the way in which the hon. Lady very loyally made the case for the group's lead amendment while ensuring that her own reservations about it were put on the record.
	The hon. Lady said something very important about the Bill: the reason why the Select Committee ended up with the amendment, which is difficult to follow in its terms, was that it had rushed through pre-legislative scrutiny. That is the responsibility not of the Committee, but very much of the Government, who decided to push the Bill through for no reason that I can comprehend.
	I profoundly disagree with the Government's timetable for the boundaries and AV referendum Bill, but, given the time scale involved, it is at least understandable why they judge it necessary to push the legislation through. The Bill before us is on fixed-term Parliaments, however, and there is not the least prospect of an early general election at any time in the next three years.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend is being slightly disingenuous. Is not the most obvious reason why the Bill is here, before us, that the coalition partners are worried that the other one will welsh out?

Jack Straw: Of course. I was going to come on to that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading me down that path. There is no reason to rush through legislation for a fixed-term Parliament, because, even if we do not have the Bill, there is no prospect of a general election being called, in almost any circumstances, within the next three years.
	The Liberal Democrat and Labour parties were committed by their manifestos to the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, but the Conservatives' proposal ran directly counter to that, because it stated that a general election should be called within six months of any change of Prime Minister, meaning that, if the Prime Minister had suddenly passed away or something else had happened to him and he was no longer in office, we could have had a general election within a twelvemonth.
	We know, however, that the structure of the Bill and the rush derive not from the pursuit of a sensible idea for which there is all-party support, but from narrow, partisan reasons related to the internal chemistry that both parties feared and, I think, still fear could be explosive in difficult circumstances.

Eleanor Laing: indicated  assent .

Jack Straw: I am glad to have the hon. Lady's endorsement.
	As we know, that was precisely the reason why, miraculously, of all the numbers that the coalition partners could have chosen, they originally alighted on the trigger level of 55%, because it would have given neither partner the ability to force an early general election against the wishes of the other.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no prospect of a general election for a number of years, but may I mischievously suggest that he shows greater faith in the coalition partners than they show in themselves and each other?

Jack Straw: I would like to have such faith. My faith in the Conservative party's ability to pursue its own interests and survival and to consume other, minor parties-mainly ones beginning with L-is always high. My faith in the Liberal Democrat party's ability to secure its own survival was never particularly strong and has completely plummeted following the coalition deal. Shortly after the election, a Conservative peer told me-literally licking his lips at the prospect-of how he would happily predict that the parliamentary Liberal Democrat party would go the same way as previous Liberal parties, once they had been embraced by the suffocating hug of the Conservative party, and disappear for a number of decades into oblivion. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) is, if not quite licking his lips, smiling in approbation at the prospect.

Daniel Kawczynski: The right hon. Gentleman neglects to mention the Lib-Lab pact in the late '70s, which I am sure he will remember, and that the Liberals got through that unscathed.

Jack Straw: But the pact was not with the Conservative party. Sadly, in some ways, the Labour party is far less ruthless than the Conservative party when it comes to worrying about its own survival. I am happy to discuss the details and the highways and byways of the Lib-Lab pact, because I worked as a special adviser, as they were pompously called and, I think, still are, to the great Peter Shore at the time-and necessary it was, too. In those days, at least the Liberals had some sense of which side they were on, but they have abandoned even that idea since.
	I shall speak specifically to amendment 4 in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which would delete clause 2(1)(c), the measure providing the two-thirds trigger for a Dissolution. The hon. Lady made a slip of the tongue that, as often with such slips, held a revealing truth. She talked of a motion of no consequences, rather than a motion of no confidence, and, apart from the fact that I object to the idea of special majorities in the House, it seems to me that the trigger is wholly redundant, unnecessary and, indeed, offends the role of the House in holding the Executive to account. Now that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have had to abandon the completely naked idea of a 55% trigger, which would have enabled the most extraordinary circumstances to arise, they should abandon the provision before us, including the two-thirds trigger, altogether.
	The provision was included in the Bill as a copy-out from sections 3 and 46 of the Scotland Act 1998. The Deputy Prime Minister first tried to make up the arguments for the measure on the hoof, and somebody pointed out to him that such a trigger existed in the 1998 Act. He suggested that it was a completely rigid trigger, and that the only way in which an election for the Scottish Parliament could be called was by a two-thirds majority of every MSP. Closer examination of sections 3 and 46 of the 1998 Act shows that that is simply not the case, however.
	Section 3 does, indeed, provide for an early election if
	two-thirds of the total number
	of MSPs vote for one or, as subsection (1)(b) goes on to state, if
	any period during which the Parliament is required...to nominate one of its members...as First Minister ends without such a nomination being made.
	Under section 46, the First Minister's nomination is by a simple majority. If it transpires that nobody in the Scottish Parliament can command a simple majority, in other words that no confidence in either party is declared and the Government in Scotland cannot continue, there is by virtue of that fact an election, and that is entirely right.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I want to push him on the points that he is making. The possibility of a no-confidence vote still exists in the Bill, and if a Government could not be formed in 14 days we would go to a general election. Would he prefer the power to call a general election to remain solely in the gift of the Prime Minister or in the gift of this House?

Jack Straw: I am in favour of a fixed-term Parliament, although I would have wished it to be four years. So, too, did the Liberal Democrats wish it to be four years. Indeed, they spelled that out in a document dated 10 May 2010 headed Recovery and Renewal, which contained their proposals in the coalition talks for what became the coalition agreement. I am indebted not to the department of open government in the Liberal Democrat headquarters for providing wider sight of this, because whatever they think about the Freedom of Information Act 2000, they certainly do not apply it to themselves, but to the  New Statesman and its website. For greater accuracy, however, I have a copy here. It says:
	Immediate legislation to...set the date of the next election for June 2014, and establish-

Tristram Hunt: Ah!

Jack Straw: I will repeat that because I know that my hon. Friend must have misheard it:
	Immediate legislation to...set the date of the next election for June 2014, and establish the principle of four-year fixed term Parliaments in future.
	 [ Interruption. ] The Deputy Leader of the House is mumbling from a sedentary position. If he thinks that I have misread that, I am extremely happy to be corrected. However, it ill behoves the Liberal Democrats-I am sorry, I almost said the Conservatives: that was a Freudian slip-and, particularly, the Deputy Prime Minister to suggest that a five-year term is a matter of principle, as opposed to a four-year term, when they proposed a four-year term and agreed to a five-year term only as a result of some rather scrubby back-stairs deal.

David Heath: Let me try to help the right hon. Gentleman, because I do not believe that he was here on the first day of Committee when we debated this matter, which is in clause 1. As we are now on clause 2, I do not want him to find himself out of order.

Jack Straw: I am sure that that is a matter for the Chair, but I was simply trying to provide a comprehensive answer to the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke).
	If we have a fixed-term Parliament, then of course the power of the Prime Minister to call an election is very significantly modified. I am concerned about the rights of this House. This House works by passing legislation, and all other matters, on the basis of votes by a simple majority. If we had a written constitution, which I am not against, we could have a separate debate about whether there should be some means or other of entrenching certain basic provisions. We are doing that in practice for some, but not others, by way of referendum, and for some, but not others, by way of convention and cross-party consensus. Meanwhile, however, regarding how this place works and good governance, we operate on the basis of a simple majority.
	What we should be doing in the Bill is laying down a fixed term-I would prefer it to be four years, but it is going to be five-and then accepting the reality that circumstances could arise in which a Government of the day lost the confidence of the House. There is no alternative to that. No new Prime Minister could suddenly pop up and regain the confidence of the House. That being the case, there has to be an election, as happened after four and a half years of the '74 to '79 Government. It seems to me that those should be the only circumstances that should trigger an early election. I do not want there to be provision whereby, by some method or another, whether it is by a majority of a half, 55% or 67.5%, a package of Members can be got together in order to hold a general election. Nor do I think that those provisions would ever be used, because they are so complicated. There is no point in our passing legislation that has no significant purpose.

Angus MacNeil: I am genuinely listening with an open mind to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about a simple majority in Parliament. However, how can we control a Prime Minister who has a majority in the House and whips his party to vote for his will? How can we maintain the power of the Parliament when the Prime Minister controls parliamentarians through the Whips?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point as to whether a Prime Minister anxious for a general election could engineer a vote of no confidence. Even if these provisions stand as they are in the Bill, that would still be a technical possibility.

Angus MacNeil: It would be less likely.

Jack Straw: No, it would not. There is nothing in paragraph (c) that would, in law, prevent a Prime Minister from being party to an arrangement to secure his own demise and go for a general election. If these provisions go through, there will be nothing, in law, that can be done about that theoretical possibility.
	Professor Robert Hazell, in evidence to the Lords Constitution Committee, made a very pertinent comment on this point when he said that political incentives should prove a force for stability. Whatever may have been appropriate in Germany in one very unusual case where the Chancellor did indeed arrange to move a motion of no confidence in his own Government, the prospect of a Prime Minister of this country coming to the House to move a motion of no confidence in his own Administration without suffering immediate popular and parliamentary derision, and a significant loss of votes at the poll that would then follow, is fanciful.

William Cash: I might have expected that the right hon. Gentleman would hit the nail on the head. He is really talking about the great damage that lies within these provisions-namely, that they are in defiance of the democratic mandate. This is about Whips and patronage; it has nothing to do with the people outside. My only suggestion-it is not a criticism-would be that he may want to qualify his reference to the impact on this House by talking about the impact on our electoral and democratic system and thereby the damage done to the people of this country.

Jack Straw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and thank him for the compliment.
	I have a number of rules that I try to follow in politics, one of which is that fancy tactics never work. This is a fancy tactic. I am sorry to say-it is not that I have anything personal against them-that one can see the Liberal Democrats, who were, as described by one of their members, a perpetual Opposition think-tank until they suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves in government, thinking up this wheeze on the basis that because it had happened in Scotland and, no doubt, in Latvia or Leichtenstein, it would work here. However, we have a more direct system of democracy; we may criticise, and I hope that we do.  [ Interruption. ] I hear someone referring to Scotland. I happen to think, on reflection, that the relevant section in the Scotland Act is redundant, but different considerations applied at the time. One consideration-I mean this in no disobliging way to Scottish colleagues of all parties-is that the Scottish Parliament is a creature of this House, legally, whereas we have to be responsible for our own rules.

Angus MacNeil: Thanks for the SNP Government, then.

Jack Straw: It is the first time that I have ever been thanked for anything by a member of the Scottish National party. I hope that next April and May it says on every leaflet how deeply grateful the SNP is for the possibility and opportunity to serve in a Scottish Government and to enjoy all the rewards that have come its way from the money that the British people, of all parties, have provided.

Nigel Evans: Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had some rules. Could he have another rule, which is to speak to the amendments in the group?

Jack Straw: I am sorry that I digressed, Mr Speaker.

Mark Harper: This is not a fancy tactic-I would not know one if I saw one, although if I did I am sure I would have learned it from the right hon. Gentleman. It is very straightforward. We decided that if there were a general view in the House that there should be an early election, the House should have the power to cause one.
	The right hon. Gentleman gave the example of Germany. The reason why the Government there engineered a vote of confidence was because there was no other mechanism for an early election. If we were to remove our provision, then if there were a general view in the political classes and in the country that there should be an early election, the only way of having one would be for the Government to engineer a vote of no confidence. That would not be very sensible or very honest.

Jack Straw: We need to speak about possibilities in the real world. The only example in recent times that I can think of when a Prime Minister has wanted to call an election of choice, without any necessity due to his parliamentary majority, is that of Edward Heath in January 1974. There was no way he would have got a two-thirds majority in favour of a dissolution. In my view, the country as a whole and the Conservative party would have been saved a great deal if there had not been an early dissolution at that point. I simply say that if we are to have fixed-term Parliaments, which is a good idea but will have consequences, we must ensure that a Government can get booted out only if a motion of no confidence is passed.

Chris Bryant: Is there not one other very significant difference between the drafting of the Scotland Act 1998 and of this Bill? In Scotland, the process involves considerable consultation with wider civic society and all the political parties, because it was concluded that the electoral system should virtually guarantee that one political party would never enjoy a majority. That is very different from the situation here.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

William Cash: Following the Minister's intervention, may I take the liberty of correcting a point that was made regarding the German situation? Under the German constitution-a written constitution, of course-a two-thirds majority must be in each house, whereas the Bill's provision applies only to the House of Commons. In addition, and more importantly, it must be two thirds of all those who vote in the division in question, not two thirds of all seats. That is a very important difference.

Jack Straw: I accept that, and the history of the German constitution is very different from the history of ours, even though to a large extent we wrote it.
	I will finish where I began, by referring to the explanation by the hon. Lady of the amendment that she moved, with which she does not agree. She pointed out that that was a consequence of her Committee having to rush through pre-legislative scrutiny. I sat on the Front Bench for part of the debates on the Bill, and I have yet to hear any convincing explanation from the Minister as to why they had to rush the Bill through.

Angus MacNeil: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the higher the percentage of parliamentarians required to trigger an election, the less likely it is that any Prime Minister will call an election of choice, because it will be more difficult for them?

Jack Straw: If a Prime Minister really wanted to call an election of choice, they would not worry about the two-thirds majority requirement, because they would be very unlikely to get it. They would instead go for a motion of no confidence.
	By legislating for a fixed-term Parliament, we will establish a clear political norm that Parliaments last for five years. Leaving aside the argument about whether the term should be four or five years, I happen to support that principle, and I believe that is where the British people are. However, if the confidence of the House is lost, or the Government of the day simply give up and vote for a motion of no confidence, there must be an election. In the absence of that, there should not.
	I have arranged to go and sit in Westminster Hall at 4.30 pm to listen to a debate on a matter of interest to all Members from east Lancashire. If this debate is not concluded by then, I hope I may be excused.

William Cash: The Chamber is very empty, considering the significance of what is being done by clause 2. In a way, that reflects the decline of this Parliament, which some of us believe strongly needs to be rejuvenated, not on the basis of protestations of power being returned to the House, as we read in our manifesto, but in the reality of how legislation is introduced.
	The clause is the turn of the screw by the coalition into our democratic system of government, which, at its essence, is about the individuality and votes of conscience of MPs, irrespective of the Whips and the patronage system. It creates a permanent constitutional change through a passive, silent revolution-the most silent revolution since our Parliament began. It is being done without a mandate of any kind for any party, in any manifesto, in any part of the political system.

Tristram Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman as shocked as I am by the new constitutional principle that we are hearing from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills-that the manifestos upon which individual Members of Parliament were elected no longer mean anything, because the coalition agreement somehow supersedes everything that they were elected to stand for?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not part of the amendments before us, so Mr Cash, could you restrict yourself to the amendments, please?

William Cash: What I am saying, Mr Evans, is that the clause is being introduced without a mandate, using Parliament and patronage to undermine Parliament itself, not only now but in future. The voters, who have reposed their trust in us as MPs, are being severely damaged by what is being done today. As for the future, to quote T. S. Eliot's Burnt Norton:
	Time present and time past
	Are both perhaps present in time future
	And time future contained in time past.
	If all time is eternally present
	All time is unredeemable.
	So is this act of constitutional vandalism.
	My amendment 4 is based on a simple point of principle, namely that a motion can be passed by a simple majority of one, as has been the case from time immemorial-from the very inception of our parliamentary process in what is sometimes described as the mother of Parliaments. That is now being changed in a manner that will seriously alter the method whereby a Government may fall.
	The merits of the various amendments, such as amendment 33 and my amendment 4, may differ. However, mine, which has been supported-without my encouragement, I have to say-by the Leader of the Opposition and therefore by the Opposition themselves, has the merit of simplicity and maintaining the status quo. Why have I tabled this amendment? It is because I object to the new-fangled idea that an early election would result from a motion, perhaps proposed by the Opposition, any MP or even the Government themselves, that requires-this is contrary to all constitutional precedent and history since our Parliament first sat representing the electors of this country-the support of two-thirds or more of those eligible to vote as Members of Parliament. In other words, we are talking about seats and not the persons present in the House of Commons. That is a profound and dangerous doctrine.

Graham Stringer: I profoundly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Are there not two very offensive things about this proposal? It means that hon. Members of this House are equal apart from when there are votes for a Dissolution; if a Member is voting in a minority, their vote is worth more. Even more strange and offensive is that if a vote were to take place now, the electorate of Oldham East and Saddleworth would be enfranchised, when they are not enfranchised for any other vote in the House. Such a situation is absurd and offensive.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman's point is extremely sensible and full of common sense, which is what this Bill lacks. This is about something else; it is not about the manner in which our democratic system functions. It is about something completely different and I will come to that in a moment.

Mark Durkan: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that his case against idea of a special weighted majority for Dissolution in this House would be more credible if he had not previously proposed amendments to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that required a threshold of support for any referendum on the alternative vote? He supported other amendments as well that required not just a threshold that related to those who voted, but to the total number on the electorate. Is there not some hypocrisy in the argument he makes today?

William Cash: I am more than delighted to reply to the hon. Gentleman. Sparring with him always causes me great amusement. As for what he says, there is a substantial difference. The threshold amendment that I moved on the other Bill was to do with the threshold of a number of people who would participate in the election, and not what was going on in this House. It was not even related to the question of the threshold of those who voted yes, as in the Scotland Act 1998 and the amendment of George Cunningham, the then Member for Finsbury and Islington, so there is a significant difference. I am talking about the trust that is given to us in this House and the manner in which we discharge it.
	The coalition originally proposed 55%, but that was so manifestly absurd that the coalition agreement was then torn up and the figure was replaced with two thirds. If not 55%, why two thirds? The Scottish Parliament-I am using this analogy because it has already been raised, but I think that it is completely irrelevant-does not form Her Majesty's Government. Decisions in time of war, a Finance Bill or any of the other great levers of power are issues are determined, and will continue to be determined, by the United Kingdom Parliament. One such great exercise of power at a most important time was the confidence motion of 10 May 1940, which was passed, as it happened, by the Government, and it led to the demise of Neville Chamberlain's Government, because everyone knew he had to go. I do not regard the Scottish parliamentary experience as relevant. If not two thirds, why not 75%, 60% or any other number that Harry Potter's wand might conjure out of thin air?

Jack Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman speculate on what he thinks would have happened if the two-thirds rule had applied in May 1940?

William Cash: Absolutely. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Furthermore, there was the motion of no confidence in the Callaghan Government in 1979, in which the numbers of votes were 310 against 311. The result of that vote may have been a matter of satisfaction for the Conservative party, but I am sure that it would not have been to others. However, if the two-thirds rule had been in operation, there would not have been a change in Government and that would have been a disaster for the country.

Mark Harper: I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend. I think that he is confusing the two different processes in the Bill. There is provision for having an early election if the Government lose a vote of no confidence. That is by a simple majority, as now, and it is not changed. The other provision is an extra power for the House of Commons, which it does not have today, for two thirds of MPs to vote for an early election. We are not in any way, changing the ability of a Government to be held to account by having to have a simple majority.

William Cash: It is only because I have not completed my remarks that my hon. Friend's intervention seems understandable. I do not dispute the fact that a vote of confidence by a majority of one would apply in the circumstances described in the clause, but-this is the other side of that equation-we then get into the question of the 14 days and the shenanigans that would follow with all the Whips and other people manoeuvring around to guarantee that the vote of confidence would be secured. We go back to my main point: it is the power of patronage of the Whips and the determined and ruthless exercise of that power that lies behind this proposal. That is my main objection to the whole thing irrespective of the fact that there is no mandate for these provisions from any political party.

Christopher Chope: When we talk about the law of unintended consequences, which applies big time to the provisions of the Bill, will my hon. Friend not apply that in his mind to what is happening in Ireland at the moment? There is a constitutional crisis that requires the Prime Minister, in honour, to put an issue to the electorate for a general election. This Bill would preclude the Prime Minister from doing a similarly honourable thing in this country.

William Cash: My hon. Friend with his customary originality brings into play a contemporary example. Imagine a two-thirds rule being applied in respect of Mr Cowen at this moment. Be in no doubt, there would be riots in the streets of Dublin. This is an essential question about the irresponsible manner in which this power could be used to induce results that are fundamentally undemocratic.

Jack Straw: It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hoyle. I defer to you as ever.
	I understand the Minister's point that these provisions relate not to a motion of no confidence but to other motions for an early Dissolution. Given, too, the poor definitions of what a motion of no confidence is, we could anticipate a situation in which a Government who wish to cling on to power, even though they lack a simple majority, could dodge and weave-because they determine the business of the House-for quite a period and ensure that the motion that went before the House was tabled under clause 2(1)(c) requiring a two-thirds majority in the hope of buying themselves a little time. If this provision was not in the Bill, the choice between going to the end of the period or having an early election would be much more stark.

William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman demonstrates why many people thought that he was one of the foremost leaders of the House of Commons. He understands the mechanics that lie behind such questions. Precisely what he has just said could easily happen. Indeed, many other things are likely to be conjured out of thin air by the wave of a magic wand of the kind that only Harry Potter seems able to use.

Bernard Jenkin: I cannot understand how Ministers can argue that the Bill takes power away from the Prime Minister and gives it to the House of Commons. In 1979, the intention of the provision would have been to prevent the House causing a general election. The Prime Minister would have been in the driving seat, with 14 days to cook up some kind of new deal to stay in power. How is that taking power away from the Prime Minister?

William Cash: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is such a shame that more people are not here to hear some of the criticisms that are being made of the Bill. We are not criticising it because we want to be difficult or because we are the awkward squad; we are criticising it because it is a profound constitutional issue. The provision is intended to be permanent, not a will-o'-the-wisp measure that will last a few months, and it will induce permanent constitutional change-it is a constitutional revolution, but a silent one, as I said.
	A majority of one is at least understandable and can be calculated. I referred to the German example. Their measure operates on the basis of those in the House itself when the vote is taken, which raises a series of questions about the manner in which the Government's proposals would operate. If we have a provision that is based on a fixed number of seats, it will not matter at all whether people turn up. Why bother with a Parliament in those circumstances? What would be the point if it was simply a question of the number of seats? Who occupies them, what they think about things or whether they have a view to express would not matter. That is an outrageous proposition, and I cannot believe that my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to subscribe to such arrant rubbish. The reference in the Bill to the number of seats carries an analogy to the Rump Parliament to extremes.
	The proposal is based not on any constitutional principle but the expediency of propping up, if necessary, the temporary alliance, which is how the Oxford English Dictionary describes a coalition. The measure, for all I know, may run foul of the internal contradictions of putting two parties together that, in certain but not all respects, have entirely contrary views on matters of fundamental constitutional and political importance, such as the alternative vote, which a number of my hon. Friends and I voted against. We are Conservative, and we believe that the alternative vote is the wrong way to go. We believe in first past the post and in a simple majority, because they account for the individual conscience of hon. Members, and not merely the number of seats. Dare I even mention the European question, because that is also part and parcel of the shift in the fundamental balance of power away from this House?
	The coalition agreement illustrates that point. At the heart of that arrangement, there are some destructive and some constructive proposals, and some are unworkable. For example, under the agreement, Liberal Democrats have a right or duty to abstain on important matters. The 55% rule proposal was abandoned not only because of its absurdity, but because of opposition to it. The reason for the two-thirds rule is that it will be easier for the Whips to fulfil their masters' wishes. Their power would be imperilled if a motion were conditional merely on a majority of one. That is the crunch.
	The principle of the majority of one proves my point, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) indicated in an intervention. I responded to him by referring to the 1979 Division, when there was a majority of one. I find no merit whatever in moving away from the virtues of a simple majority, although I doubt that the Leader of the Opposition, who signed amendment 4, would be so firmly enthusiastic for Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979. However, I repeat that I have not tabled that amendment for the sake of the wishes of the Opposition. I simply believe that we adhere to the simple majority.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend has mentioned the 1979 example twice now. As I said, the Bill would not change the situation when there is a motion of no confidence in any way. If that position happened now- [ Interruption. ] If the Government lost a Division on such a motion by one vote, the situation would be the same, but the 14 days for the formation of a Government makes things different. Amendment 4, by removing the two thirds majority rule, would effectively mean that anyone who controls a majority in the House can have an election at will-it would effectively give back to the Prime Minister the power to dissolve the House whenever he chooses to do so in a perfectly open way. If my hon. Friend is happy with that, that is fine, but that is not our proposal.

William Cash: I understand to a degree where my hon. Friend is coming from, but I am afraid that I am not attacking that constitutional position. I do not believe it necessary to take the power to dissolve from the Prime Minister-that power is based, as it were, on his democratic mandate-and give it to the Whips to engage in their shenanigans in the 14 days following a no confidence motion, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn said.

Mark Harper: Will my hon. Friend make that clear? Is he saying that the intention of amendment 4 is to ensure that the Prime Minister retains the power to seek a dissolution? I ask that because Opposition Members say that they are in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, albeit there is a debate over whether the term should be four or five years. My contention is that the Opposition's support for amendment 4 effectively drives a coach and horses through their support for fixed-term Parliaments, because it would give the power to dissolve directly back to the Prime Minister.

William Cash: The Opposition's thinking is not a matter for me. I happen to believe that our present constitutional arrangement should be sustained. It gives me no pleasure to know that the Opposition will vote with me on amendment 4. Their reasoning does not matter; what matters is the constitutional principle that I am advancing.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. May I illustrate the point that he and I have made in answer to the Minister's perfectly reasonable point? At first blush, it appears that the provisions of clause 2(1)(c) strengthen the role of the House against the Prime Minister. However, I remember what happened in 1979. I was a candidate at the 1979 election, so I was no longer working for the Government, but I was in very close touch with people for whom I had worked for three and a half years and knew a lot about what was happening. There was a crisis over the outcome of the Scottish Assembly referendum, and the Commons needed an occasion on which it could give vent to that feeling, because the various smaller parties had to have their positions put on the record. Had there been a provision in legislation for an early dissolution by two-thirds majority, the Government of the day-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Interventions must be shorter. I understand that the point has to be made, but I would be grateful if we could get to it quickly.

Jack Straw: In that situation, the Government of the day would have worked with the smaller parties and said, You can have your shout on the two thirds majority, and in return, we'll give a bit of extra cash to Northern Ireland, and so on. That would have happened. Therefore, the motion of no confidence would probably never have been tabled, and even if it was, it probably would have been lost.

William Cash: I understand that point, and the right hon. Gentleman describes a sort of invitation to pork barrel politics.

Mark Harper: rose -

William Cash: The Minister is so determined to speak again that I am happy to give way to him.

Mark Harper: I am simply participating in the debate. I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on his characterisation of the 1979 situation. The motion in March 1979 was not about giving vent to anything; it was very clearly about whether the House had confidence in Her Majesty's Government. I assume that everyone who voted for it had a clear idea what would happen if it were carried. It was, and there were consequences. It states:
	That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government,
	so I cannot believe that anyone was confused about what they were doing.

William Cash: I will now move on to the very question that is being discussed, which is motions of no confidence and what they really mean. There are various permutations, which are well described in the Library note, but the issue for me is basically this. In my belief-and according to the House's tradition and its conventions, which are now to be overtaken by statute-a majority of one should remain. However, in that 14-day period, with shenanigans worthy of Lord Voldemort and the servants of the Dark Lord, an attempt would be made to keep in power a Government who had lost the confidence of the House of Commons-that is, the representatives of the electorate. That attempt would keep the Government on their feet, while the public would be left watching the spectacle of streams of members of the Cabinet and prospective members of the Cabinet from the Opposition parties striding up and down Whitehall, in and out of offices, all under the baleful influence of the Cabinet Secretary, as they tried to hatch yet another coalition agreement, no doubt based on very different principles from those for which the electorate had voted, in accordance with the parties' respective manifestos or-dare I use the words?-their promises.
	As to the question of what confidence motions actually are, they are various. In 1945 it was Churchill versus Attlee, and the Government won. Then there was Attlee against Churchill in 1952, and Gaitskell against Eden in 1956, when the Government won again. There was also Wilson against Heath in 1972, on the European Communities Act, when there was thought to be quite a lot of manoeuvring on the question of whether there had been a free vote or not. I will not go down that route now, but examples of where the Government have lost confidence motions include the Liberal Government of 1895, the Baldwin minority Conservative Government -note: minority Conservative Government-in 1924, the MacDonald Government in 1924, when there was again a dissolution, and, of course, the famous Callaghan defeat by Thatcher, by 311 votes to 310.

Richard Shepherd: I am getting increasingly impatient in one sense, but on the distinction between what is a confidence motion and what is not, I put this proposition to the Committee. If the Government lose the Budget, that is it. My understanding of our constitution is that that would be the end of the Government.

Chris Bryant: indicated  dissent .

Richard Shepherd: Well, Governments have resigned on the loss of such votes. Therefore, what constitutes a motion that arrives at that result? What my hon. Friend has been quoting were dates, not motions.

William Cash: It is very rare that I say this, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend about that, because although those are dates, they are also about matters of huge political significance to the country at the time.

Richard Shepherd: That applies to the Budget.

William Cash: Indeed, and my hon. Friend is right on that point, because it is not just about the business; in my judgment, it is about the sense of feeling in the country and the outrage in the House about the policies that are being pursued.

Bernard Jenkin: rose-

William Cash: I will give way to my hon. Friend for the last time.

Bernard Jenkin: It is worth reminding the Committee that the words on the Order Paper in May 1940 were That this House do now adjourn.

William Cash: Indeed, but that was about the sense of outrage over what had been done. That could apply to a Budget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) said, or to any other situation. It could have applied to Suez or, for example, the Iraq war. For all those reasons, the confidence motion, in whatever terms it is expressed, is just that: do those voting in the House of Commons at the time, by a majority of one, have a sufficient degree of confidence in the behaviour and policies of the Government?

Richard Shepherd: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's tolerance in giving way again, but the outcome of the vote in 1940 was the resignation of the Prime Minister, not the Government as a whole. Although the Government went with him, they reformed themselves, so what happened was not an electoral matter; it was the outcome of a confidence motion in the individual who headed the Government.

William Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend on that, but there was also the sense of outrage that was being expressed. As that occasion has been raised three times already, let me mention in passing that, as it happens, it took place on the day that I was born, but there we are.
	What does such innovation say about the coalition? It certainly demonstrates its determination to stack the cards firmly in favour of the coalition and the Whips. There may well be one third whom the coalition cannot take for granted or persuade, but I fear that that attitude is taking power away from Parliament-which, after all, is made up of the representatives of the people-and not giving it back. If the same principle were followed for any other motion, Parliament would simply not be able to carry out its business. I fear that what is proposed is not modernising, but is a reactionary measure. It is not progress, but a step backwards, along the primrose path, undermining the constitutional principles that have governed our conventions and been tested over many centuries. The proposal has been conjured out of thin air, for the ruthless purpose of maintaining power irrespective of the consequences. In my opinion, it is a great shame that it has been put forward on the proposition that-as was said in the general election and at the conference that took place recently-we are supposed to be Working together in the national interest. I fear that on this Bill, on this matter, we are working together against the national interest.

George Howarth: Long before anybody else on the Opposition Benches supported amendment 4, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I added my name to it. I listened carefully to what he said. He used the terms Whips and patronage to describe what he believes lies behind the provisions in clause 2, which I think is just a shorthand way of saying that we are talking about monolithic party structures that, generally speaking, follow whoever happens to be leading at any given time, and the instruments of that are the Whips and patronage.
	I am a party political creature. I would not be in this House under any title other than that of Labour Member of Parliament. However, at the same time, I believe that we are sent here to exercise our judgment, particularly on issues such as that we are discussing, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, have not really been tested before the electorate. Fixed-term Parliaments and the alternative vote system were in our manifesto. However, the provisions in clause 2 that he has discussed were in nobody's manifesto, so I feel in no way obliged to support them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) may correct me on this, but those who follow history, such as the hon. Gentleman, will know that it was quite common in the early to mid-19th century for Governments to change and for votes of no confidence to be taken. In fact, quite often the country would go for several weeks without an effective Government in place. However, the difference then was that party political labels were almost meaningless: the Liberal party did not exist in the form that we later came to know, while the Conservative party was a collection of factions.
	In those days, it was possible for Governments to change their leadership and even the coalition that supported that leadership without there necessarily being a general election. We do not live in such circumstances now, and it is important to be mindful of the arrangements that we put in place for the Dissolution of Parliament or any other means by which to change a Government in mid-term.

Grahame Morris: In reality, if a Prime Minister commands a majority in the House of Commons, instead of seeking to obtain a two thirds majority in the House, will they not simply repeal or amend the Bill?

George Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a typically good and well thought through point. I do not want to make a long speech, but the simple point-this is why I support the hon. Member for Stone-is that if the House decides by a simple majority that it has lost confidence in the Government of the day, that should be enough.
	We invoke what people outside think, but they would be astonished if they thought that the Members of Parliament, regardless of party labels, whom they send to the House to represent them were able to pass a vote of no confidence in the Government, but not by what has been called a sufficient super-majority to make any difference. We would seem not to have been given additional powers, as the Minister seems to argue, but to be impotent. That cannot be good for Parliament, for politicians and certainly not for any of us as individual Members of Parliament. I am pleased to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stone and I hope hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will support it in the Lobby if there is a Division.

Chris Bryant: It is a delight to see the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) back in her seat. She introduced a new concept of votes of no consequence. On the Opposition Benches, it often feels as though every vote is one of no consequence, but we hope that with more support in the coming days, we will manage to turn that around.
	The hon. Lady said one important thing- [ Interruption. ] She has doubtless said many important things, as the Minister rightly reminds me. In particular, she said that she disagrees with the amendment she tabled, which was interesting. She also referred to the fact that her Committee had had virtually no time to do what she called pre-legislative scrutiny. In fact, I suggest that a far more sensible procedure for engaging in all legislation, and particularly that on constitutional reform, is to publish the Bill in draft, send it to a Joint Committee of both Houses and provide an opportunity for evidence to be taken, and at the end of that process it can be brought to the House. That is not what has happened in this case. She and others referred to the coalition as something of a matrimony, but the Book of Common Prayer states that holy matrimony should not be enterprised or entered into
	unadvisedly, lightly, wantonly or to satisfy...carnal lusts.
	My fear is that this part of the Bill has been entered into unadvisedly, wantonly and to satisfy the lusts of the coalition partners who want to ensure that they remain in power for as long as possible.
	The process has been wrong, and I say gently to the Minister that in our debates last week he referred at the last minute to consultation that he was going to engage in with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I understand that he has written to one Member of the House about that, but he has not written to me, and he has not written to any other hon. Members who were involved in the Committee stage, so I hope that he will take this opportunity to assure us that he will write to us immediately.

Mark Harper: Frankly, the point of order that the hon. Gentleman raised last week was nonsense. He did not give me notice of it, so I was unable to respond. I listened carefully to last week's debate and responded to it. I then made an announcement of Government policy in this House at the Dispatch Box, which I thought was the usual way of conducting business.
	The following day, I wrote to the leaders of parties in each of the devolved Assemblies, as I said I would. I did not put anything in those letters that I had not announced in the debate. I also wrote to the shadow Justice Secretary, who leads on political and constitutional reform for the Opposition, to keep him properly informed. I placed copies of all those letters in the Library.

The Chairman: Order. We should not be rehashing previous points of order. We should be dealing with the amendment. I am sure that Mr Bryant wishes to do so.

Chris Bryant: Yes, indeed. This is just about the process and the fact that it has been the convention in every Committee stage in which I have been involved for Ministers to write to all members of the Committee, and, when the Committee is sitting on the Floor of the House, to all those who have taken part in the debate.
	My point is that clause 2 has no electoral mandate. Clause 1 has some degree of mandate, in that we had proposed in our manifesto that there should be fixed-term Parliaments, and the Liberal Democrats had made a similar proposal. I do not believe that there is a mandate for a five-year fixed-term Parliament, as both political parties had previously said that they were in favour of four-year fixed-term Parliaments. Clause 2 has absolutely no mandate from the electorate. Indeed, the proposals in it run directly counter to those in the Conservative manifesto, and to what the Prime Minister said as Leader of the Opposition in relation to the reform of the power of Dissolution. He said that he would introduce legislation to ensure that, should there be a change of Prime Minister as a result of the party in power changing its leader, there would be a general election within six months, but that is not the proposal that we have before us today.

Bernard Jenkin: rose -

Chris Bryant: Of course I will give way to the lion of the right, as I believe he is now known.

Bernard Jenkin: Lion, maybe. I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the parliamentary Conservative party gave no mandate to the leadership of our party for a fixed-term arrangement of any description. The parliamentary party was consulted about whether there should be a coalition, and whether there should be a commitment to a referendum on the alternative vote, but the question of a fixed-term Parliament was never mentioned. Nobody knew anything about it until it appeared in the coalition agreement.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is true not only of his party but of the Liberal Democrats, who said that they were in favour of a fixed-term Parliament although there was no reference in their election material or manifesto, or in any of the speeches made by the now Deputy Prime Minister, to any provisions for determining when an election might be held or for introducing a super-majority. When their lordships consider this legislation, it is important that they bear in mind the fact that the conventions relating to matters that are adumbrated in a general election manifesto simply do not apply in this case. There is absolutely no electoral mandate for this provision.
	The aetiology of clause 2 is pretty straightforward. It comes from the coalition agreement. I know that the hon. Member for Epping Forest is keen, for her own reasons of propriety, to stick to voting for proposals that are in the coalition agreement. However, she has complete freedom in relation to today's amendments, because these provisions are not mentioned in the agreement. It states:
	We will establish five-year fixed-term Parliaments. We will put a binding motion before the House of Commons stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, we will legislate to make provision for fixed-term Parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.
	I completely agree with the articles that were then written by several Members, the most impressive of which was probably that by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and published in  The Daily Telegraph. In it, he stated:
	The requirement for a 55 per cent majority to dissolve parliament, and thereby dismiss a government, dramatically reduces the ability of Parliament to hold the executive to account.
	If that was true of a 55% requirement, it is even more true of a 67% requirement. Moreover, that requirement would involve 67% of not only those who voted but of all the seats in the House, even those that were vacant at the time and also, presumably, those of the Deputy Speakers and the Speaker, who would presumably not be allowed to vote. Those seats would therefore automatically be included with those who had voted against holding an early general election.
	There is absolutely no mandate for the provisions in clause 2. I believe that it will entrench the powers of the Executive, rather than releasing their grip on Parliament. An important point has been made by several hon. Members, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Home Secretary-I could list all his jobs as he has held almost every job in the Government apart from Prime Minister; perhaps that will come one day. They pointed out that the clause introduces a new super-majority, which is alien to the processes of this House. There has never been a super-majority provision. The provision is introduced by statute rather than through the Standing Orders, so again it is the Executive forcing their will on the House rather than the House taking this forward.

Angus MacNeil: Philosophically, this change has come about because of the practice of Prime Ministers choosing to go to the country at a moment that suits them and their political party rather than the country or anybody else. Margaret Thatcher did this and plenty of other Prime Ministers have done it. How does the hon. Gentleman square the circle of getting away from that rotten practice and moving towards a fairer and more equitable practice?

Chris Bryant: The most important element of the Bill as a whole is the introduction of a fixed term. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I would prefer a four-year period, but it is five years in the Bill. The presumption should be in favour of a fixed term. It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister should no longer have the power to dissolve Parliament and that the Dissolution should rest solely with Parliament rather than with the Prime Minister. To achieve such a handing over of power, we also have to change the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament. Otherwise, it would be perfectly simple for a Prime Minister who wanted to ensure an early general election-for whatever set of reasons-to bypass the two thirds majority required in subsection (1), to engineer a vote of no confidence and then to prorogue Parliament immediately so that no vote of confidence in another Government could be called.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the workings of this place, whereby a Prime Minister could simply use his Whips to whip his party and secure a simple majority. How is that circle to be squared? We could say that in one sense Parliament has the power, but in another sense it does not if the Prime Minister can use his Whips to dragoon his parliamentary party into having an election.  [Interruption.]

Chris Bryant: The Deputy Leader of the House is chuntering away. I think he is trying to talk to you, Mr Hoyle, because he keeps on saying that I am out of order and that I am not speaking to the right part of the clause. Perhaps he could have his conversation with you privately.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is absolutely right in one sense. We have to achieve a balancing act. This House needs to exert its power through its majority to hold the Government to account and, if necessary, to sack the Government. In most circumstances, that has happened when a political party has splintered or when a leader of a party has proved unable to control his or her troops-his, in most cases-through the Division Lobbies. We have seen that happen with the Irish Home Rule Bill and with the Budget at different times, leading to a collapse of confidence in the Government on the Government side and the subsequent fall of that Government. I think that we should still stick with that process.
	In case hon. Members feel that in recent times motions of no confidence-and particularly successful motions of no confidence-have been pretty rare, it is worth pointing out that we should look at a longer period of history than just the last few years if we are to set out constitutional change that will stand the test of time. We have no way of knowing what will happen to the political parties, as presently constituted, in five, 10, 15 or 20 years' time.
	Looking back over the last 150 or so years, we find that no confidence motions have been used quite regularly and have frequently led to the collapse of Governments. Lord North's Government, for example, fell in 1782. There was also a sustained period in which no confidence motions were common from 1885 onwards; indeed, there were two such motions in 1886, when first Lord Salisbury's Government and then Gladstone's Government fell again on the issue of Irish home rule, which divided the Liberal party-

The Chairman: Order. I am sure that the Committee, like me, welcomes the history lesson, but we must stick to the amendments, from which we are drifting away. The hon. Gentleman may feel that he is in order, but he is not. I would like him to come back to order, and it would also be helpful if he faced the Chair.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful, Mr Hoyle. I will address myself to you more directly. The point I am trying to make is that clause 2 deals with motions of no confidence and early elections and these have been a sustained part of what we have put up with. I am not sure whether you are going to allow a clause 2 stand part debate later. I note that you are saying no, but I hope it will be possible to allow a degree of latitude so that we can consider all the elements of the clause.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) observed that Governments had fallen by virtue of their Budgets' being opposed. One of my arguments is that the whole concept of a no confidence motion is excluded from the Bill. It is not clear what counts as a no confidence motion; nor is it clear, in the part of the Bill that we are currently considering, what counts as a motion calling for an early general election.

Richard Shepherd: Might that lack of clarity be a mark of the wisdom of past generations? They knew when it had happened that a Government were not sustainable, and they knew when it had not happened. The mood of the House in relation to that of the country was an open question.

Chris Bryant: I am not sure that that is true. It depended on the Crown-that is, the Government or Executive-retaining the power to dissolve Parliament. I do not think that a measure that was considered to be a motion of no confidence in 1866-namely,
	to leave out the words 'clear yearly' and put 'rateable' instead thereof-
	would be considered to be one today, and I therefore think that it would be inappropriate for that power to remain.

The Chairman: Order. The next set of amendments deals with no confidence motions. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of jumping ahead, and I am sure that he does not want to do that.

Grahame Morris: I am concerned less about hon. Members' definition of a confidence issue than about whether that definition would be acceptable to the court if a certificate were challenged. However, I accept that that is the subject of a later clause.

Chris Bryant: We will undoubtedly discuss the Speaker's certificate when we deal with later amendments.
	The Government have relied for their provision on calling a general election on the fact that there are similar provisions in the Scotland Act 1998. It is true that that Act provides for an early general election when, and only when, there is a super-majority among those voting. However, as I tried to explain to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, the two measures are completely different. The presumption in the Scotland Act was that it would be virtually impossible for any one political party ever to have a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Incidentally, the Act also contains a provision that is entirely different from the provision in clause 1: it provides that the date of the next general election, if there is one in Scotland, will not be changed at all.
	Moreover, the provisions in the Scotland Act mean that if there is no First Minister-which is the equivalent of no one being able to gain a motion of confidence on a simple majority-a general election must follow in any event. That, in my view, clearly invalidates the super-majority process, which I think will be used very rarely in the Scottish Parliament.
	The problem with the provision in clause 2 relating to a super-majority is that either it is profoundly dangerous because it removes Parliament's power to hold the Government to account, and to be able to sack the Government or the Prime Minister, or it is otiose, because a Prime Minister who wanted to ensure an early general election at a time of his or her own choosing would simply engineer a motion of no confidence or, for that matter-as there is no determinant for what counts as a motion of no confidence-table a motion of confidence in which the Government then chose not to vote. The Opposition would almost certainly vote against the motion of confidence, and an early general election would follow.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Scotland. An election called by the Scottish Parliament during the period of that Parliament would not necessarily reset the clock. An election would still take place, say, a year or two years later. I understand that here the clock would be reset. There is clearly an incentive to go to the country at different points which does not exist in Scotland.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for echoing a point that I made three minutes ago. I still agree with the point that I made three minutes ago, and I now agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is great. We are gathering support in the debate, which is very exciting. I hope that he will support the same amendments as me.
	My problem with amendment 33 is that it places all the power in the hands of the party leaders. That is a profound problem, as I hope we are moving into a period when Parliament finds more opportunities to take its destiny into its own hands. I hope various measures that have already been introduced will help in that, and will revitalise the role of Back Benchers and therefore make it possible for not everything to be decided by the party leaders. That is an important principle, and it is why we do not support the amendment-although I realise that the hon. Member for Epping Forest will not press it to a Division in any case.

Eleanor Laing: I simply want to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman; he makes a very good point.

Chris Bryant: I wonder whether I can carry the hon. Lady a little further into even greater acts of agreement. Bearing in mind the stricture she has set herself of not opposing anything that is in the coalition agreement, she should feel free to support us in respect of later amendments on the two-thirds majority, unless she has found some other reason not to do so.
	We have tabled one amendment to clause 2: amendment 21. The clause provides for the calling of an early general election, but it does not specify what early means in that context. It does not state whether the motion that could be moved in the House would say, for instance, This House calls for a general election in the autumn of next year, and if so whether that means the general election would be held next autumn or prior to that, as current legislation still allows for the precise date of a general election to be set by royal proclamation, which would obviously be on the basis of advice from the Privy Council, and therefore would in practice come from the Prime Minister.
	Therefore, the Bill as currently drafted lacks clarity in this respect. That is why we have suggested that the clause should refer to an immediate rather than an early general election. That fits with amendments we have tabled to other provisions saying the power to determine the precise date of the general election should not be left to the Prime Minister, and that instead the date should be set.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: In a moment.
	Once the Speaker's certificate has been certified or provided, the general election should be held on a specified date as provided for in legislation, rather than one decided elsewhere.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman define precisely what he means by immediate in this context?

Chris Bryant: Again, the hon. Gentleman is catching up with me; I explained that in my last sentence, but he had already sought to intervene. What I was trying to say was that under amendments we have tabled to other parts of the Bill, the election would take place on the sixth Thursday after the day on which the Speaker had issued the certificate, whereas the clause states that the general election will be held on the date provided for by royal proclamation-I presume under the Great Seal-as advised by the Privy Council, and therefore, effectively, determined by the Prime Minister. I presume those measures have been put in place so as to stick with the current timetable for general elections, which is six days after Dissolution for the close of nominations and 11 days after that for the day of poll, but perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is the case. If we are putting other provisions on to the statute book, there is no reason why we should not be able to provide in statute the precise day on which the general election would take place. That is my definition of immediate.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was right in saying that he did not consult the Opposition in tabling his amendment. I have to confess that he got to the Table Office about 20 minutes before we did, so I am afraid that on this occasion we have had to row in behind him. Whereas we disagree on many issues, on this issue we simply agree. Either the provision of a super-majority for the calling of an early general election is dangerous or, like Z, it is the unnecessary letter-it is otiose and is not necessary in legislation. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would remove the super-majority. It would return us almost exactly to the provisions of the South African constitution and allow for an early election on the basis of a simple majority, even though South Africa has fixed-term Parliaments, which have been pretty much adhered to since 1994.

Nicholas Dakin: Does my hon. Friend think that such arrangements make things more transparent to the public? Super-majorities are very opaque and are not understandable in these matters, whereas what he is arguing for is much more transparent and understandable, and much better.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that for there to be a super-majority in this Parliament, 434 votes in favour would be required, although that is before the Bill before the other place, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, comes into operation in an unamended form. We are talking about 434 out of the 650 seats at the moment. As I have said, the arrangement leaves some things completely uncertain; I presume that the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers would not be allowed to vote.
	That brings us to another interesting point, which is that, as you will know, Mr Hoyle, under the Standing Orders and the custom of this House, the Speaker and the Chair do not vote unless there is an equality of votes. That is different from the arrangement in the other House, where the Speaker or the Chair of the Committee is able to vote twice. The commonly accepted provision, as stated in Erskine May, has then been as follows for the Speaker:
	it is usual for him, when practicable, to vote in such a manner as not to make the decision of the House final.
	In a vote such as I am describing, there would not have been equality of votes, but if one side had got to 433 seats, would the Speaker be allowed to vote or not? This is slightly complicated when there are 650 seats, but if the number is reduced to 600, as suggested in the Government's proposals in the other Bill, 400 seats would be the mark that we would have to reach. If the vote is on a knife-edge, would the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, or the Chair of the Committee, be allowed to vote on such a measure? Importantly, this is not just about the Speaker. If the vote were on a Budget and if we took the advice of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that in some situations a Budget decision or a financial decision would be considered a motion of no confidence, the provision would relate not to the Speaker, but to the Chairman of Ways and Means or one of the other Committee Chairmen, who would be chairing.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said, many difficult elements are involved in operating a super-majority. The biggest problem arises where the Government or the Opposition table a motion seeking to get to that figure and an early general election, and obtain more than half the seats in the House but do not reach the two-thirds majority. In what state would that leave the Government? Would a motion of no confidence immediately have to be tabled for us then to be able to proceed to the other measures? Or would that original motion, by its very nature, have been considered a motion of no confidence, because the Government declared it to be a matter on which winning the vote was an issue of confidence? Again, this provision is either a dangerous or entirely unnecessary element.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, therefore, that amendment 4 is the most important in this group? If so, will he argue in support of having a vote on it, if my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) withdraws amendment 33?

Chris Bryant: I am enthusiastically in favour of having a vote on amendment 4, because it goes to the nub of the issue; in large measure, it deals with the only issue of significance in this group of amendments.

William Cash: In case there were any doubt about it, may I tell the House that I shall certainly be putting amendment 4 to the vote?

Chris Bryant: In case there were any doubt about it, I shall join the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby unless the Whips manage to get to him, which is very unlikely. They rarely manage to get to him-he is an undiscovered country beyond whose bourn no Whip has ever returned, since we are doing Hamlet this afternoon.

The Chairman: Order. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that the Chair will decide on which amendments the Committee may vote.

Chris Bryant: Of course, but I will not look for you to join us in the Division Lobby, Mr Hoyle.
	The Government might say in their charming, elegant and smooth way that this is a hypothetical situation because the honest truth is that in all normal circumstances no Government and no Prime Minister would ever choose to circumvent the power of the House on the two-thirds majority that would be needed to call an early general election by enforcing a motion of no confidence. I echo the words of the Clerk of the House in a memorandum on the Bill to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform: there may be little risk of an accident if one drives up the motorway on the wrong side of the road at 4 o'clock in the morning, but the impact if there were an accident is likely to be very serious, and so although the risk of a dispute about a vote to dissolve Parliament being argued out in the courts might be small if it were to happen, its impact politically and constitutionally would be very great. That is why I say to the Government that although I understand how they have ended up with this legislation-it is not that I detest every element of it, although I dislike the process and I dislike the use of the period of five years instead of four and so on-and although I think there are elements of the clause that are right and proper, I think that they have not thought through the full possible consequences of the legislation.
	I can easily foresee a time when a Prime Minister who is desperate to have a general election because of war, an immense financial collapse or something else that he thought was of absolute centrality to the Government that he-

Mark Tami: Or she.

Chris Bryant: Or she. I thought I just heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) speaking in my ear.
	If that Prime Minister felt that it was essential in the interests of the nation that there should be an early general election, the Government would be prepared to bypass and use every trick in the book to secure an early election. They might well have this Bill in their back pocket as a means of achieving that. So although this Government were supposedly trying to release the grip of the Executive, they would have enhanced it.
	I want to reaffirm our commitment to fixed-term Parliaments. That means that we have to lay down in statute that it is for the House, not the Prime Minister, to dissolve Parliament. It should also be for the House to decide the precise date of the general election, which should be in statute, and we should have only one process of calling an early general election. We must be clear that the Government need always retain the confidence of the House of Commons and that should be written in statute now.
	For most of the 20th century, we have had very few hung Parliaments, but I suspect that there might well be more in future. We need to ensure that our provisions will stand the test of time rather than simply being drawn up to appease the coalition agreement.

Richard Shepherd: Mr Hoyle, I have a point of inquiry following your response to the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman, which is about the stand part debate. As the amendments are theories in concatenation, it is difficult to address an amendment in isolation without reference to a wider context.

The Chairman: It is unlikely, not ruled out. The other point is that I am not sure that we will even get there. At the rate at which we are going, we have quite a while to go yet.

Richard Shepherd: Thank you, Mr Hoyle. I shall start with my first observation, which is that the test of each clause in both of the constitutional Bills is to ask in what way it enhances the role of the people in relation to Parliament. The answer, again, is that this does not. The measures are meant to be an internal reorganisation of the rules and regulations of the House of Commons effected through statute. We have had advice from the Clerk of the House that, if challenged, it will be open to judicial interest and the views of the courts. Historically, this matter has always been determined within these precincts and so the question of what we call parliamentary privilege is particularly germane to the Bill. I am very concerned about that. I make the perhaps minor observation that in a struggle between a new Government without a mandate and the House of Commons authorities, who are appointed by the House, I would back the advice of the House rather than that of the politically motivated and interested Government of the day. I do not dismiss the Clerk's memorandum or accept the response to it, which is effectively like that television sketch Computer says no. That is an extraordinary and very undignified response to the Clerk's advice on something that is of the greatest importance to Members of the House, and through them, citizens' rights, activities and freedoms.
	My next point concerns the accumulation in clause 2 and the proposed amendments to it of purposes, or distinctions between ways of dissolving Parliament. These measures have shifted my position from benign acceptance of the concept of a fixed Parliament to one of questioning whether there was not greater wisdom in the proceedings and processes that we had before. These measures worry me enormously. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) generously moved an amendment in which she has no confidence in order to test a proposition, and she did test it-to destruction. On examination, the amendment is too threadbare and offends the very conscience of why we are here. It suggests that some Members' views on whether a Parliament should stand or not should be disregarded because they do not have a party leader who represents a certain number of votes. I do not know how such an amendment got through the Select Committee but I think it was to form the basis of some sort of standing order that could be cooked up to meet the point about judicial inquiry into the purposes or nature of the Bill.
	Let me make another point about motions for an early election or of no confidence. We have tickled, argued and considered across the Chamber the way in which Mr Callaghan accepted that there had to be a general election, but that was nearly at the end of a five-year Parliament. There was very little scope beyond going the few months left, but he stood up immediately and said, There will have to be a general election. I remember the perfervid moments of the Maastricht debates and the subsequent consequences of a Government who had a very small majority wanting to increase the rate of VAT on domestic fuel. The motion was to be vehemently opposed by people such as myself, who had lost the Whip, but not just because of that-it was an opposed measure. It could not have fallen but for the support of Conservative Members who took a broader view on it, and it did fall. The argument that was put by the bastion of the 1922 Committee and the Whips, of course, for they have an argument for all seasons, was that if it fell, the Government would fall, and that the solemnest duty of any Conservative Member was to support the measure because the confidence of the House stood in the Budget. I shall always have a soft spot for the Justice Secretary-then the Chancellor-because when he lost the vote, he said, with that famous giggle, Oh, we'll have to have a corrigendum Budget. We duly had one on the following Thursday. I am really talking about the pressure that was put on Back Benchers, because we were told that the Government would fall.
	If I had stood in front of my constituents at the general election and said, I've got two little measures. The short title of one of them is the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill, but the long title seems to contradict that concept, they would have been bemused. If I had then started talking to them about the nature of confidence votes and motions for an early election, they would have been struggling. We were entering an election and they knew what it was about; there was a crisis. There was a huge public deficit and anxiety about jobs, yet here was Shepherd of Aldridge-Brownhills troubling them with the notion that
	each member of the House of Commons who at the time of the motion being made is the registered leader of a registered party
	and so on. If I had done that, my constituents would have thought, Well, he's been with us a long time, and they might have made a different judgment in the election.
	The measure has no mandate. I have opposed other constitutional measures, but however wrong I thought the balance of the argument was for the detail of the Scotland Bill proposed by Labour, no one could say that there had not been a national convention on it. There was no political party in Scotland that had not long resourced such a measure. I recall John Smith's role and that of a whole series of people. They were alert and alive to the issue. No one could claim that there was no mandate for the reforms and changes that took place under the sovereignty of this Parliament to create a Scottish legislative structure and to pass powers to Scotland. The constitutional developments in Wales and Northern Ireland were similar.
	Those measures could claim a mandate. The 19th century is often cited, but these are long struggles. I was a little riled by the Labour spokesman because he referred to the 18th century. It is proclaimed that the glory of the House is reflected in our coming to the democratic age-it is rather like dividing up what happened in a great empire-but the democratic age is fairly fresh and young and new. It did not really start until the 1860s. That was when political parties were formed and there was a more regimented approach to the management of the House-not easy to do. There was a glorious extract from the  London Illustrated News next to the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)-I now know where Pericles found the stones to get over his lack of confidence. The extract was from the Queen's speech-then Her Majesty Queen Victoria. The burden of it was to say, This parliamentary Session-well, this particular parliamentary Session will last for ever, but apart from that-Her Majesty's Government will concentrate on foreign affairs. It will leave domestic legislation to the House. Just like that. That is a world away from where we are now-where the Government have to fiddle and twiddle, and do everything at the behest of a very informed-

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) also gave us a history lesson and had to be reminded to come back to the amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) would prefer to stick to the amendment. I realise that we can broaden things out, but we are going a little bit too far from the measure.

Richard Shepherd: Of course, I joyously do that. Implicit in every line of the measure is the management of the House. That is the only reason why I diverted slightly to recall the  London Illustrated News.

Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman is making another fine speech, which I am always glad to hear. He spoke about the mandate for constitutional change and the previous mandates that previous changes have enjoyed. Does he agree that it is important to have a mandate not only to introduce a change in the constitution such as that proposed, but to entrench it? Without such a mandate, is there not a danger that future Governments may feel that they have the authority to introduce such constitutional changes to their own benefit, much as the present Government are seeking to bring in a constitutional change through the measures in the Bill for their own benefit?

Richard Shepherd: I like the young new Member vigorously advancing an argument that I find so convincing.
	The measure is not appropriate for a serious democracy. Clause 2, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, is an endeavour to entrench. It is as simple as that. We cannot ignore a wider picture of what is going on. At this moment, loyal and good dinner guests of those who run my party are marching into the Lords to take their place. Their doing so means that when the Bill comes to be voted on-remember, the other House that has to deal with that is the Lords-the numbers able to vote on it in the Lords in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat interest will have increased exponentially.
	Overall, the Bill-clause 2, the other clauses, the Speaker's certificate, the idea of a registered leader of a registered party and so on-is, if not humbug, then designed to defeat the very purposes that most of us in the House want, an open democratic House. I know that this is difficult in politics, but my Conservative colleagues should listen, understand and think about the 200 very new Members in the House who are going to change a constitution without any reference point other than party loyalty. Party loyalty to what? No mandate? They are going to march blindly through the Lobby at the behest of the concept of party, when in a coalition that is a very different matter.
	I shall certainly vote for amendment 4, and I hope there will be many who take that course.

Mark Durkan: Many valid arguments have been made about this group of amendments by a number of right hon. and hon. Members. I have total sympathy with the cynicism that has been expressed about some of the devices in the Bill and the motives for them.
	However, I believe totally in the idea of a fixed-term Parliament and have supported amendments that clearly stated fixed term, although I believe that the term should be four years, rather than five. I have to ask myself, as all of us as legislators and members of the Committee must ask ourselves, if we do not like the present provisions, what is our alternative that would mean that we have credibly passed a Bill for fixed-term Parliaments? That is where I part company and cease to be persuaded by some of the arguments that I hear in respect of some of the amendments.
	With reference to cynicism about the motives, a number of hon. Members have articulated the basic nature of the Bill. It is the means by which the two coalition parties have created a statutory harness to keep them together for this Parliament. It is, in essence, a fixed this-Parliament Bill, rather than a Fixed-term Parliament Bill. It is designed to solve the conundrum of either party collapsing the coalition. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is for fixing future elections. This Bill is about fixing this Parliament.
	If I want the Bill to be a Fixed-term Parliament Bill, I have to be judicious about its content and any amendments that I might support. That is why I have some questions about some of the amendments that have been so articulately presented today.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) presented amendment 33 with a white flag and in a very novel way, which just goes to show that it is entirely possible for people to present themselves in all sorts of ways in the House. People say that a Government would not use or exploit in any way a no confidence motion against themselves, but any available device will be used in any particular circumstances. That is the nature of politics.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke to amendment 21 and made a strong case for an immediate as opposed to an early general election. The only problem is that if immediate can mean only six weeks, as he said to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), what happens if, for example, we are close to Christmas-perhaps the middle of November-notwithstanding that allowances will be made for holidays? If we are truly to take account of media coverage and other activities during that time, is it credible to confine ourselves to six weeks and six weeks only? Clause 2 as it stands allows for consensus in the House on the need to bring forward considerably the due date for an election, and people might do so conscious of current and pending events.
	Another hon. Member mentioned the situation in Dublin at the minute, and many people would say that, although confirmation of an early election there has helped to clear the political air, going for an immediate election might cause more market turmoil not just for Ireland, but for others. There are times when we need to leave ourselves and this House the room to make a distinction between early and immediate.

William Cash: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is pretty close to and talks frequently with those in southern Ireland and in the Dail, but I doubt whether the Dail or the people of Ireland would be particularly enthusiastic at this moment, when the Government are in coalition with the Greens, to have such a provision imposed upon them. I suspect that, if the idea were suggested, it would lead to serious disturbances in Ireland, and I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman raises some wider questions, and you, Mr Hoyle, have said that the next group of amendments deals with confidence, but this debate has strayed well on to that ground and conflated the two issues of whether the House, by a weighted majority, calls for an early election or whether it passes a motion of no confidence in the Government.
	In 1994, the Government changed in the Dail. The Labour party left its coalition with Fianna Fail, supported a motion of no confidence in the then Taoiseach and reappeared in a new coalition with Fine Gael and the then Democratic Left. In that situation, as in the Bill before us, provision has been made for a Government to change-a new Government to be constituted-in the lifetime of a Parliament, and in 1994 the people of Ireland settled quite happily for that.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend does not like my immediate provision, but I shall suggest one reason why he is wrong. The Bill, if unamended, means that Her Majesty by royal proclamation under the Great Seal, after conferring presumably with the Privy Council, determines the date of the general election, but that in essence is down to the Prime Minister. Surely, if the whole point is to take that power away from the Crown and to place it here in Parliament, there should be provision for an immediate general election.

Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about trying to remove powers from the Prime Minister, but I am not sure that all the amendments that he supports would do that. I think that, in a fairly effective way, the powers would remain pretty heavily with the Executive.
	I am not fully persuaded of the case for the amendment. I fully accept the argument that it would bring some clarity and put some control in the hands of the House. However, there could well be good, logical reasons for having an election that occurred to people at the time, possibly well in advance of a due election date. There could be political difficulties in one of the devolved regions that are leading to elections there, or particular market issues, or all sorts of crises in Europe-although I do not want to excite the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) with that prospect. A variety of reasons could create a coincidence of interest across a number of parties from a number of places to say, We'll have an early election, and a date could be set without necessarily having to do it in crisis mode for six weeks hence.
	The beauty of a fixed-term Parliament is meant to be that, because we all know the dates, we do not create uncertainty and have political rushes and get all sorts of brinkmanship games being played. However, if this House is to have the power to dissolve early, it can have that power but not necessarily the power to do it immediately. It can have the power to give due notice that the date is being brought forward but without waiting until just six weeks beforehand. If there is merit in a fixed-term Parliament, there is also merit in leaving this House the opportunity to bring forward a date other than just by a vote six weeks beforehand, because that would create surprise and difficulties and a sense of crisis. I fully accept that the terms of the clause are not fully adequate: the hon. Member for Rhondda is absolutely right about that. We do not have a complete or adequate provision on fixed-term arrangements.
	Amendment 4 would remove the requirement for a two-thirds majority. I accept the argument made by many hon. Members that that is a very high threshold. I do not agree that it should be two thirds of all Members regardless of whether they are voting. If we are going to set any majority, or any weighted majority, it should comprise those who are present and voting, so I do not accept the Bill as it stands. However, I cannot just simply go along with the argument that says that there should not be any sort of weighted majority, because then we are not sure what proof we are providing against anybody abusing the numbers in this House to dissolve Parliament early. Other hon. Members have referred to the powers of the Prime Minister and the powers that are exercised through party machinery-the Whips, and so on. Leaving the calling of an early election to a simple majority that can be activated to call an election within six weeks means that huge power remains in the hands of the Prime Minister.

George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that being a Member of this place carries with it not only a lot of privileges but a lot of responsibilities, and that if we can achieve a simple majority, that would mean that more than half the Members of the House of Commons-people who have been sent here to exercise their judgment-had reached the conclusion that the time was right for a general election? I cannot for the life of me see why he finds that a difficult concept.

Mark Durkan: I believe in the idea of a fixed-term Parliament. I am therefore not comfortable with the idea that, yes, we have fixed-term Parliaments, but that at any time a simple majority can call an election for six weeks hence. That is what I am being asked to vote for as an alternative to what is provided for in the Bill. The Bill is not perfect, and it is badly motivated-I am as cynical as anybody else about that-but I have to be judicious and logical about what I would provide in its stead.
	There is an old joke about somebody going into the two-hour dry cleaners and being told, Come back on Tuesday. They say, What do you mean, come back on Tuesday? It says 'Two-hour dry cleaners' outside. Then they are told, That's just the name of the shop. That is exactly what we have with this Bill. People say that they want a fixed-term Parliament, but they also want a Bill that means that it will not, in effect, be fixed, because a simple vote at any time can dissolve it-and who is going to be moving those votes and pulling the strings of the Whips behind the scenes? We must remember that at any time, it will be possible for people to force an election by using a simple majority to force through a vote of no confidence in the Government. If there is not a vote of confidence in an alternative Government within 14 days, there will be an election. If people want the means to force an election, that route exists.
	However, it is fair and reasonable also to give the House the power to change the date of an election for reasons that are not particularly partisan, that are mature, responsible and well thought through and that can be justified in light of existing circumstances and forthcoming events. The House should be able to say, We have a fixed-term Parliament, but we are giving all sides ample notice that we will be moving the date. That would not be a matter of artifice or brinkmanship. If the House is being offered such a responsible, mature power that it could use with responsibility aforethought, I find it bizarre that Members are trying to twist and turn to find reasons not to take it.
	I welcome the spirit of the amendments intended to allow parties other than the bigger ones to have a say. The small parties found themselves disqualified from even being able to nominate members of the Backbench Business Committee, for example, so I am conscious that some thresholds being used in the House are a problem. Some of our parties are no longer eligible to be on the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, a creature that some of us helped to create in the first place, because of thresholds and the way in which numbers are played with. Therefore, I fully appreciate the spirit of the amendments but I have my doubts about their exact nature and how practical they are.
	We need to be careful about the Bill and the amendments to it. We want to ensure that fixed-term Parliaments are in place and that it is not so easy for parties to break whatever convenient glass is to hand in case of emergency. I am persuaded that there is a need for a weighted majority provision, and for a vote that is different in character from confidence votes, which are not threatened by the Bill. If anything, the Bill provides for a situation similar to the one in Ireland in 1994, so I have no argument with it on that score. I do question the terms on which the threshold will operate, and when I question the effectiveness of some of the amendments, I do not in any way give up my cynicism about the nature and purpose of parts of the Bill and its twin, which has now gone to the other House.

Christopher Chope: I am against the Bill because of the lack of flexibility in it. From what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has just been telling us, I think he agrees that if we have a fixed-term Parliament, a lack of flexibility is inevitable. He said that in the current constitutional and financial crisis in Ireland, it is reasonable that its Parliament should be able to call what he described as an early general election rather than an immediate one.
	However, the consequence of the Bill will be that if we had a constitutional and financial crisis in this country similar to the one besetting the Irish people-God forbid that that should happen-the hon. Gentleman or I might ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he intended to call an early general election so that the people could have their say. Under the terms of the Bill, the Prime Minister would turn around and say to me or the hon. Gentleman, I am sorry, but I don't have the power to call a general election now. The only way I can engineer one is for you to put down a motion of no confidence in me, with the humiliation that it would involve, or for me to try to get a two-thirds majority in the House to facilitate it. The Prime Minister would lose the right to call an election. The Minister seems to think that is a good idea, but I do not. I trust the Prime Minister's judgment on such issues, and I think we should trust the people and let them decide.
	When our good friend Edward Heath was Prime Minister, he decided to call an early general election to deal with the miners' strike. The people reached their verdict. Basically, they said, We think that you have proved yourself unworthy to remain in office. The fact that a Prime Minister calls an early general election does not necessarily mean that they are going to win it. Whether they win or not is a matter for the people.
	If there was a financial or constitutional crisis, such as the one in Dublin, a reasonable Prime Minister-I should like to think of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a reasonable man-would say, In the light of what has happened, we should call a general election. We should call it now. We should not have to have a contrived vote in the House of Commons. I wish to go to the Queen and ask her to exercise her prerogative to call an immediate general election.

Mark Durkan: In Dublin, a budget needs to be passed and then people can make a legitimate judgment. The imperative is to get a budget passed to create some economic and financial stability to boost confidence in the wider markets-not just for the Irish economy but for other economies both inside and outside the eurozone that will be under pressure. There will be an election in late January and that is known, but at least the Dail has the opportunity to pass a budget.

Christopher Chope: I will not get involved in the detail of what is happening in Ireland at the moment. If a similar situation were to happen in this country, people might well turn to their Members of Parliament and say, Why should we trust this Government to pass another Budget when it has made such a Horlicks of the current arrangements? Why don't we elect a new Parliament and a new Government to deal with the crisis?

Mark Harper: At first, my hon. Friend said that this Bill would not provide any flexibility. Then he set out two ways in which we could have an early election. Our proposition is that it would be up to this House rather the Prime Minister to call an early election. The Prime Minister could come to this House, put down a motion and then Members could decide whether they wanted an early election to deal with the financial crisis. To give the power to this House and not leave it with the Prime Minister is an improvement.

Christopher Chope: Where we all part company with my hon. Friend is on the issue of whether a 50% plus one majority should suffice. That is where the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) comes in. In the hypothetical situation that we describe, a majority of this House may decide that there should be a general election, and surely that is reasonable. Why should we have to have the constraints of a two-thirds majority, which is a contrivance in itself?
	I had the privilege of introducing the first Adjournment debate in this Parliament when we discussed the issue of the 55%. I like to think that it was largely because of the cross-party ridicule of the 55% arrangements in the coalition agreement that the Government decided to think again. They did think again, but they reached the wrong conclusion. They should have gone back to saying, Let's have a bare majority rather than going to the artificial two-thirds majority. They tried to pray in aid, falsely, the Scottish precedent, which was discredited during that first Adjournment debate and on a number of other occasions as not being in line with our situation. In Scotland, there was full public consultation on the new Parliament and the way in which it could be dissolved early, short of the expiry of the fixed term. After that discussion, the Scotland Act 1998 was brought in with the arrangements set out in it. In the United Kingdom, a general election took place. I and others were elected on the Conservative manifesto. We then found that we did not have an overall majority, so we were forced to go into a coalition Government-at least that was the decision that was taken. We are now told that only a two-thirds majority can bring this Parliament to an early end, short of a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. I have all sorts of objections to that proposal, not least that it is effectively retrospective legislation. If this House is to legislate to fix the lengths of Parliament, it should legislate for the lengths of future Parliaments, not the current one. I object to the proposal, and I hope that it is taken up in the other place.
	I also reject the idea of the artificial two-thirds threshold, which has not been discussed anywhere. When my hon. Friends consider whether to join my hon. Friend the Member for Stone in the Division Lobby on amendment 4, they should bear in mind not only that the two-thirds threshold was not in the Conservative manifesto, but that it was not even in the coalition agreement. They should be free to say to their Whips, I said I'd go along with the coalition agreement, albeit reluctantly, but I am certainly not signing up to amendments to the coalition agreement that the Government make on a whim and expect me to support automatically. I'm going to look at each issue on its merits, and I see no merit whatever in the two-thirds majority.
	In conclusion, the excellent speech by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) was well worth listening to. He speculated about the motive and urgency of the Government's proposal. We know what the urgency is: the Government are split completely over the AV referendum. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives-the majority party-both want to be sure that the other does not pull the rug from under the coalition Government after that referendum. It is quite possible in my submission that the Conservatives will lose, although I hope not, but who knows what will happen in that game of Russian roulette?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Such an experienced Member will know that the referendum is not quite part of this group of amendments. I am sure that he would like to get back to the amendment.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, Mr Hoyle. I am sorry, but the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who is a former Home Secretary and holder of many other important national offices, drew me down that road of speculation.
	To sum up, the Government have a motive to cover either outcome of the AV referendum. It suits both parties in the coalition to prevent an early general election, which is why they want a fixed-term Parliament-they want to assure themselves of a longer period in office. I say only this: good luck to them, but they should not expect me to vote for the Bill tonight.

Tristram Hunt: I wish to speak to amendments 33 and 34. Even though I, too, am a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I did not put my name to them. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) suggested, they allow us to pursue the idea of exclusive cognisance, and of this place having control of its powers rather than being opened up to external powers, particularly in respect of the possibility of the courts intervening in the parliamentary process.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, the Clerk of the House has repeatedly warned Members that the provisions of the Bill
	impinge upon Parliamentary privilege and...may bring the Courts and Parliament into conflict,
	and yet the Government seem unwilling to heed any such advice. When the Clerk of House appeared before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, with his usual subtlety and modesty, and we tried to press him on whether he had been consulted on the developments behind the Bill, he rather averred in his answer. The Government consider that
	this Bill would cause no such rebalancing and that the Bill will not in any way open up parliamentary proceedings to the jurisdiction of the courts.
	That is an idea that the amendments are beginning to tease out. In their reply to our Committee, the Government also said that insufficient time for pre-legislative scrutiny is a
	natural consequence of legislating at the beginning of the first term.
	I am a new Member in this place, but I do not regard that as a sufficient excuse for some of the lacunae that we have seen opening up in the course of our scrutiny of this legislation.
	I would like briefly to point to two areas where there are potential openings for judicial intervention in the running of this place. I do not wish to speak to the Speaker's certificates now, because we will return to the specifics of that, but amendment 33 opens up the issue as a principle, because in addition to fixed electoral dates, the Bill empowers the Speaker to produce a certificate for an early general election, which would occur if the House had passed a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and, after 14 days, there had been no further motion expressing confidence. The Government are leaving it up to the Speaker to decide whether such events have occurred, but the problem is that the judgment that the Speaker makes will now be placed in statute, as a principle, but it is not an easy decision for the Speaker to make. He or she would have to adjudicate on what constitutes a confidence motion, the selection of amendments to the motion and the consequence of their being carried, all with an eye to major political ramifications. Crucially, because the certificate would be laid out in statute law, any disputes about whether the Speaker had been right to issue the certificate would have to be settled in the courts. The Speaker's certificate becomes justiciable and would therefore be declared invalid if the correct procedures had not been followed.
	As you know, Mr Hoyle, lawyers can interpret their way around provisions in any way they like, and particularly those stating that the Speaker's decision is final. There is a celebrated case of a compensation scheme after the Suez crisis, with its legislative provision that
	the determinations of the compensation body shall be final.
	Not according to the court, which ruled that where the body had made a decision on compensation that was wrong, it was not a determination but only a purported determination, and therefore the courts could still review it. So if the wrong procedures were followed, any certificate would not be a certificate of Dissolution properly so-called, only a purported certificate, and would therefore not be final but would potentially be amenable to judicial review. The Government seem intent on ignoring that possibility and the numerous potential openings for legal dispute.
	I hate to refer to your position in depth, Mr Hoyle, but another example is the position and role of the Deputy Speakers, as laid out in subsection (4). Were the Deputy Speakers to dissent from the Speaker's view of the no-confidence motion, there would be strong grounds for questioning the basis on which the Dissolution was based. The current provision is that the Speaker must consult the Deputy Speakers so far as practicable. I am sure that that would be no problem, but the notion of what is or is not practicable in the case of dissent between the Deputy Speakers would also need to be settled in a court of law. As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and many others have pointed out, another issue would be whether all Members of the House of Commons had been present at the vote. However, no matter what the reason given, in such politically charged circumstances as those that would surround a vote of no confidence, parties are likely to seek means of challenging the Dissolution. We have also had reference to what constitutes a motion of no confidence. Is it losing a Budget or a specific motion?
	Amendments 33 and 34 and others hint at the expansion of judicial review and the danger it poses to this place and to the democratic process and the calling of elections. Judicial review has hugely increased the role of the courts, which now regularly pass judgments on questions that were previously non-justiciable. I suggest that it is dangerous for the Government to assert that when the Bill becomes law it could not possibly be affected by judicial review because the judges would not dare to intervene in the matters of this House. The fact of the matter is that this is uncharted territory and they cannot know for sure until it has indeed been judicially reviewed.

Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important and persuasive case. Is not all the evidence that judicial review of administrative action is increasing? For example, very recently, the Digital Economy Act 2010 was opened up by the courts for judicial review. It is less controversial than this, bit it inevitably suggests that there will be more review in future.

Tristram Hunt: My hon. Friend is right, and I shall come in a moment to the Hunting Act 2004, which is another piece of legislation that was open to judicial review. In the courts at the moment, there is the extraordinary situation of an election court judging my-I not sure of the correct parliamentary terminology-previous hon. Friend the Member for Oldham-

The Chairman: Order. We will not stray down that path, as the matter is before the courts. We must return to the amendment.

Tristram Hunt: Thank you, Mr Hoyle. That proves my point-the areas where we cannot go because they are before judges are increasing.
	In his written statement, the Minister simply cites article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, and leaves it at that. It provides that
	proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court,
	and he said he could see
	no reason why the courts would not continue to defer to them.
	The comity between Parliament and the courts has relied on the fact that the internal proceedings were entirely matters for the House's jurisdiction. Its procedures arising from Standing Orders or resolutions cannot be legally challenged, but statute law can. That is the extraordinary development in the Bill.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with amendments to come and amendment 6. I take his point, but there is a huge body of law, and statements are being made by members of the Supreme Court that are causing great concern and are being considered by my European Scrutiny Committee's inquiry into parliamentary sovereignty in the context of law-making in this House.

Tristram Hunt: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come to the Supreme Court in a moment. I do not want to interfere with his amendments on the Speaker's certificate, which are absolutely correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) referred to the Digital Economy Act 2010, and the Hunting Act 2004 was also reviewed in court. Yes, the court ruled that it could not interfere with the Act, but it had to go to the Law Lords for that supposedly self-evident truth to be confirmed. Even there, the judgement was hardly a ringing endorsement of Parliamentary sovereignty, which is what amendment 33 seeks to retain.

Richard Shepherd: The process of getting to the courts takes time, and obviates the timetables in the Bill.

Tristram Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is of course correct. There will be extra layers and extra opportunities for lawyers to intervene. It was no wonder that Lord Steyn commented in the light of the Hunting Act 2004 that it
	is not unthinkable that circumstances could arise where the courts may have to qualify a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism.
	I think that in plain English that means they would be interested to get their teeth into the proceedings in this place.

Simon Hart: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a legal challenge to the validity of an Act or, as in the example that he has just given, the validity of the use of the Parliament Act in ensuring that an Act reaches the statute book?

Tristram Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and his knowledge of the Hunting Act is second to none. I am hinting at the adventurism of justices in critiquing and opening up to judicial review not only the Parliament Act but the proceedings of this place. The fear is that putting these measures into statute will open up the calling of elections from this place. That is what amendment 33 seeks to address.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is relentlessly hunting out the provisions that will be referred to shortly. The problem with the Parliament Act 1911 is that the phrase
	shall not be questioned in any court of law
	follows the words stating that the certificate
	shall be conclusive for all purposes.
	When the courts come to interpret these questions, they will say,  Well, that's what it says in the Parliament Act. So if the words were left out, there may have been an intention to include the courts of law in this instance. That is why my amendment 6 makes it absolutely clear that there shall be no presentation of such a certificate to the courts, let alone any possibility of their adjudicating on such matters.

Tristram Hunt: rose-

The Chairman: Order. We are in danger of straying into amendment 6, and I would like hon. Members to come back. I am sure that that is what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) was about to do.

Tristram Hunt: I was about to come straight back to amendment 33; I will not be led too far astray.
	Reference has been made to the new Supreme Court on the other side of Parliament square, which gives the capacity for amendments relating to the self-governing of this place, such as amendment 33, to be overturned by the actions of judges. The Clerk of the House has further warned us of the not infrequent need in recent years for interventions by the Speaker of the House of Commons to protect parliamentary privilege in the courts. As the hon. Member for Stone knows far better than we do, these matters can go from here across Parliament square and even to Europe.
	All we want from the Minister is some clarity on this issue, and evidence of some slightly more rigorous thinking than the rushed elements that we have had so far. Rather than being slightly dismissive of the fears expressed by the Clerk of the House, will he provide us with some certainty and a clear answer to the question on statutory instruments and the certificate?

Several hon. Members: rose -

The Chairman: Order. After such a long debate, may I inform the Committee that I do not propose to allow a debate on clause stand part?

Mark Harper: There are several other groups of amendments, and we can expand on these matters further in due course. I shall only go as far as I need to in discussing this group, rather than trying to accelerate the debate. I want to deal briefly with the timetable. I do not think that the Bill has been rushed in any way. It was published in July, it had its Second Reading in September, and the first day of its Committee stage did not start until November. We have another day in Committee today, and the House passed a programme motion earlier that gives us an extra day in Committee on Thursday. I do not think that we are rushing ahead with this. No knives were included in the programme motion, and we are taking the debate at the proper pace that the Committee requires.

George Howarth: I accept what the Minister says about the timetable for the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. A bigger issue, however, is that there was no time for proper pre-legislative scrutiny before the Bill was published and debated. Such scrutiny would have made many of these issues less contentious, or at least it would have had the potential to do so.

Mark Harper: I do not pretend that we published a draft Bill. We did not, but we have not rushed ahead. We published the Bill in July and it is now November and we are on our second day of Committee. That is hardly rushing through at a tremendous pace. We have not overly programmed either; we have had no knives and only today we have added extra time for the Bill. I do not accept at all that we have been rushing on.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) moved amendment 33 on behalf of some unnamed members of the Committee who-

Chris Bryant: rose-

Mark Harper: Go on.

Chris Bryant: I would not want the Minister inadvertently to mislead the Committee. He said that extra time has been provided, but he has not allowed any extra time; he has merely allowed the injury time for the three statements that interfered with the debate.  [Interruption.] If the Deputy Leader of the House wants to make a speech, I am sure he will be able to catch your eye, Mr Hoyle.  [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I would like to stop this bickering between the Front Benchers. Let us move on.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend moved amendment 33, although many members of the Select Committee pretended that they wanted nothing to do with it; to be fair, so did my hon. Friend. She explained why the amendment was tabled-to enable this Committee to debate and test the concerns raised by the Clerk. I shall touch on them briefly. I will not overdo them, as we may have an opportunity to debate them further in a later group of amendments on the Speaker's certificate. However, I shall deal with the amendment. I know my hon. Friend said that she does not want to press it to a Division, but it is the lead amendment.
	The amendment would remove two central provisions-the two mechanisms that provide for an early general election to take place: the vote through which the House can choose to have an early election and the mechanism for having one following the loss of a vote of confidence. Instead, the amendment provides that the early election could take place only on the House's address to the monarch, which can be made only
	by the Prime Minister acting with the agreement of...the Leader of the Opposition; and...the...leader of a registered party that received more than 20 per cent. of the total votes cast at the previous...general election.
	I have a number of serious issues with the amendment. First, it would prevent the Prime Minister from calling a general election only if he did so for political advantage. It ignores and does not address the circumstances where there is a loss of confidence. It also focuses greatly on Front Benchers, as our debate has made clear. I exempt my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest from this criticism, as she said she did not agree with the amendment, but given their views about the role of Front Benchers, I am surprised that the other signatories to the amendment thought that that was a good idea. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is not in his place, but I do not think he would mind me saying that he is somewhat sceptical about the power of Front Benchers and the usual channels. I am surprised that he supported an amendment that suggests they should have a lot of power. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) pointed out, not every registered leader of a party is necessarily a Member of this House.
	The amendment also fails to deal with what would happen to a party like the Liberal Democrats, our coalition partners, part-way through a Parliament. How would we take account of the vote it had received at the previous general election? Indeed, the 20% threshold would leave Northern Ireland parties out of the picture completely. If this measure had been in place following the 1992, 1997 and 2001 elections, only two people would have been required to table the motion-the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Conservative party. In view of what has been said about the need to remove the power of the Executive and Front Benchers, that does not seem a sensible step forward.
	It would thus be fair to say that amendment 33 is not well drafted. From what I heard, it does not sound as if it had enormous support across the Committee, including even from my hon. Friend. Despite the fact that she did not agree with the amendment, she moved it in a way that was very becoming to her parliamentary experience and the Committee enjoyed the opportunity with which it was presented.

Peter Soulsby: rose-

Mark Harper: I give way to the third guilty person responsible for the amendment.

Peter Soulsby: With the amendment's proposers having been at the receiving end of the Minister's criticism, I hope he will acknowledge that it was tabled by members of the Select Committee to enable the matter properly to be debated, particularly in the light of our concern about the lack of proper time being accorded to pre-legislative scrutiny. We wanted to ensure that this Committee could debate the matter on the Floor of the House at this Committee stage.

Mark Harper: I entirely agree. Indeed, I think I acknowledged that that had been the purpose for which the amendment had been tabled.
	I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that there is no danger of my accepting her amendment, and that as there is not to be a Division-at least if we have anything to do with it-she will not be forced to vote against it.
	Amendment 21, tabled by Opposition Members, simply changes the word early in clause 2 to immediate. I have two comments to make. First, under our own arrangements-this too emerged earlier in the debate-we do not have immediate general elections anyway. There is always a wash-up period. Before the 1979 election-which seems to have prompted the most discussion-25 Bills were passed during the wash-up period, including a number that completed all their stages during that period. Some of those Bills were very valuable. I spotted among them the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, which is still helping people today.
	Secondly, all that the amendment does is change the language in the clause. It does not, in itself, have any effect. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned a later amendment that did introduce a change, but this amendment would not bring an election further forward.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is right: we are not trying to make an enormous point. I simply wanted to tease out of the Government precisely what they understand by a motion calling for an early general election. I wanted to know, for instance, whether-as suggested by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)-he believed that it would be possible to call such an election, and that the Speaker would be able to sign a certificate saying that one had been called, when the House had, say on Wednesday next week, passed a motion calling for a general election in nine months' time.

Mark Harper: I do not think that that is drawn out by the amendment, but I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that some flexibility is required. The Speaker will certify that a motion has been passed, but we do not know what all the circumstances will be. The hon. Gentleman gave a good example when he cited the way in which Ireland has arranged for procedures to take place to provide some certainty. I do not think that we want to set all the rules in stone. We want to allow the Speaker to be clear with the House-I am sure that he would be clear with the House before it debated the motion-about whether he is able to certify that the motion would trigger an early general election. It is better to leave such matters to the judgment of the Speaker. I will come to the point about the Clerk's concern about justiciability, but I do not think that being too specific would be helpful.

Chris Bryant: rose-

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: I will give way to the shadow Minister first, because I said that I would.

Chris Bryant: What the Minister has said makes me rather more worried, and gives me much greater cause for concern than other elements of the clause. The danger is that if we are not clear enough about the precise moment when a Speaker is required by the House to act, we will be asking the Speaker to break his or her impartiality at a moment that may be very, very politically sensitive.

Mark Harper: I do not agree. I think that the Speaker would ensure that the House was clear both about a motion that would trigger an early general election and about a motion of confidence, and about what he would certify, before the debate. I do not think it would be sensible for the House to have a debate when it was not clear about those matters.
	We discussed the 1979 debate earlier. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) tried to suggest that Members had voted on that motion for other reasons, but the motion was very clear in asking whether the House had confidence in the Government, and I suggested that Members could not have been in any doubt about what they were voting for. I think that the Speaker would always want to ensure that the House understood what it was voting for, and the effect of its vote.

Chris Bryant: That is even more worrying. The Minister is now saying that the Speaker would decide whether a motion before the House was a motion of confidence in Her Majesty's Government, which is profoundly worrying. Motions on the Adjournment, motions on all sorts of legislation and motions of censure of individual members of the Government have been determined to be such by the House. If it were for the Speaker to make such a determination, we would have shot the Speaker's impartiality to pieces.

Mark Harper: No, I do not think so at all. At present, whether a motion is a motion of confidence is determined by the Prime Minister; it is determined by how they behave as a result of the vote.  [Interruption.] No, it is.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: In a moment; let me first address the question I have just been asked.
	Earlier in the debate, we had a conversation about motions that were not specifically in these terms, and several Members on the Government Benches referred to certain votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred to some votes on Europe and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) talked about a vote on VAT on fuel. How the Government behaved after the debates on those motions was determined by Ministers, not the House.

The Chairman: Motions of no confidence are an issue to be debated later. Members ought to be speaking to amendment 33.

Mark Harper: Thank you, Mr Hoyle. As always, I will do as you instruct. I will now take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, so long as he does not try to tempt me away from the instruction from the Chair.

William Cash: Some of the Minister's remarks are so completely out of line with reality that I do not think I will bother to intervene.

Mark Harper: Excellent; that is an excellent step forward.  [Interruption.] I shall take it as one.
	Amendment 4 stands in the name of my hon. Friend and was also signed by Opposition Members. Effectively, it drives a coach and horses through these entire provisions; the hon. Member for Foyle picked that point up very well. It is because we want to provide for fixed-term Parliaments that the Bill specifies that an early general election can be triggered only if there is a majority of at least two thirds. If it were possible to have an early general election by way of a motion that gains a simple majority, we all know that in most circumstances that would mean that we have given the power back to the Prime Minister. If he felt an early general election was in the interests of the governing party and that view was shared by the governing party, the motion would be passed and we would have a general election, and we would therefore not have fixed-term Parliaments.
	I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has tabled this amendment as it is clear from his speech that he does not like the concept of fixed-term Parliaments at all, and that instead he is happy with our current arrangements, which he is entitled to be. However, given that the Opposition have said they are broadly in favour of fixed-term Parliaments-albeit maybe for four years, not five-I cannot understand why they have supported the amendment because, as I have said, it drives a coach and horses through the entire proposition.

Graham Stringer: This is a great constitutional innovation. In respect of these motions, can the Minister explain why some Members' votes will have twice the weight of others'?

Mark Harper: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition about the weighting of votes. We have set out a straightforward position. We decided on two thirds partly because it is the majority required in the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, and partly because under the requirement for a majority of such a size no Government since the second world war would have been able to trigger an early election on their own. Effectively, the requirement for a majority of two thirds means that there would have to be some cross-party support and a general mood in the House that there should be an early election.
	There was talk about the fact that the coalition agreement refers to 55%, and I acknowledge that. The coalition agreement was put together quite quickly however, and we have since reflected on this question. We wanted to be clear that the Government-both parties together-were going to put aside the prospect of being able to trigger an early general election and that, instead, that could happen only if there was a shared view across the House. The reason why we alighted on two thirds was because it was the number used in the Scotland Act 1998, which set up the Scottish Parliament.

Graham Stringer: I understand the objectives. I am cynical about them and the motives behind them, but the numerical fact is that passing this motion will require the support of 400-odd Members, depending on the size of the Commons at that particular time-perhaps the figure will be 420-whereas stopping it will require only half that number. Therefore, someone's vote against will carry twice the weight of someone's vote in favour. Can the Minister be clear, not on the objectives, but on why he wants to give some hon. Members more voting power than others?

Mark Harper: I just do not agree with the way in which the hon. Gentleman has characterised this. We have said that the support of a significant number of Members is required to have an early election. It is very simple for the House to make a decision. If a simple majority is required to have an early election, we do not have fixed-term Parliaments because if the governing party or parties have a majority in this House, they will simply be able to table a motion, their own side will support it and we will have an election whenever the Prime Minister chooses. If that is what the House wants, fine. However, the House has already decided when it gave this Bill its Second Reading that it wants fixed-term Parliaments, and it did so again when we debated clause 1 last week and decided on the date and the fact that we would have five-year Parliaments. Our proposition is that if we allow an early election on a simple majority, we drive a coach and horses through the Bill.

Edward Leigh: Just to be topical, what would happen in a situation such as exists in Ireland at the moment, where there is a weak Government, a coalition breaks up, there is a financial crisis and it is clearly essential that the Government renew themselves with an early general election? What would happen in such circumstances if the Bill goes through as drafted? Would we have the absurd situation that two thirds of Members would have to vote to kill off a Parliament that nobody wanted to survive any longer?

Mark Harper: There are two parts to clause 2. Importantly-some Members were getting this confused-a motion of no confidence in the Government can still be passed by a simple majority. So if a Government did not command the confidence of the House, the House could express that lack of confidence. I shall not go into that in detail, because we will deal with it when we discuss a later group of amendments-Mr Hoyle is clear about that-but the House can vote in support of a motion of no confidence and the Government will then have the period of examining whether another Government can be formed from within that Parliament.
	As the hon. Member for Foyle said earlier, when I do not believe my hon. Friend was present, the Bill also provides the opportunity to renew the Parliament if there is a sense that there is a reason why events mean that it needs to be renewed-I believe that is the view in Ireland at the moment. If a simple majority has lost faith in the Government, a motion of no confidence can be passed. If there is a general sense that there should be an election, we have given the House that opportunity-a power that it does not currently possess. I am surprised, as the hon. Gentleman said he was, that some Members of the House sound as though they do not want a power that is not possessed by the House and has previously been possessed only by the Prime Minister.

Chris Bryant: What happens if the Government table a motion calling for an early parliamentary general election-I presume only they will be able to do so-and it is carried by 330 votes, but not by the 434 votes necessary? Could the Speaker, or for that matter the Prime Minister, determine that to be a motion of no confidence in the Government?

Mark Harper: The Prime Minister-

The Chairman: Order. I think we are back discussing no confidence-

Chris Bryant: No-

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but I am making a ruling from the Chair. I feel that this is a debate that we are going to have and I am concerned that we are getting drawn into it now. The Minister may answer quickly, if he wishes, but I do not want to let this go any further after that.

Mark Harper: Mr Hoyle, you are pointing out that we can discuss this at length when we get on to a later group of amendments. My view on the hon. Gentleman's example is very clear: if the Prime Minister so wishes, he can cease being Prime Minister whenever he feels like it. The House could then see whether an alternative Government under a different leader could be formed- [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Rhondda says not under this provision, but this provision is for an early election. The Prime Minister can cease being Prime Minister whenever the Prime Minister chooses and Her Majesty will then be able to send for an alternative person to form a new Government. That is not what the Bill is about. The Bill is about fixed-term Parliaments, not fixed-term Governments.

William Cash: Is the Minister inventing a new kind of leave, called parliamentary leave rather than paternity leave?

Mark Harper: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend is driving at.

John Redwood: Another way that Parliament could do what it wished would be to repeal this legislation by a simple majority.

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, in the sense that this is an Act of Parliament and can be repealed, but the difference is that it will then engage the other place, in which the Government do not have a majority-and in which we will still not have one when the new peers have been introduced. We think that putting the provision in legislation is preferable to putting it in Standing Orders because the Government then have to get the Bill through both Houses of Parliament, in one of which they do not have a majority- [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) says that the Government will have a majority, but no. Even when the new list of working peers has been created, the two governing parties together will not have a majority. There are Cross Benchers in the Upper House, which he keeps forgetting.
	For those reasons, I think that amendment 4 is flawed. If it is pressed to a vote, I urge my hon. Friends to oppose it. The Government's position is very clear. We want fixed-term Parliaments but we want there to be two circumstances in which there can be an early general election: when there is a traditional motion of no confidence, in which a simple majority is enough to say that a Government have lost the confidence of the House; and when the House uses its new power to force an early election, which is decided by two thirds of the Members of the House. The same provision is in the Scotland Act 1998 for the Scottish Parliament. I should say that it is the same provision, because in Scotland it is two thirds of all Members, not just those voting. The hon. Member for Rhondda did not get that quite right.
	Whichever of the amendments is pressed to a vote, I urge hon. Members to reject it. We can then move on.

Eleanor Laing: It was the Select Committee's intention to give the House an opportunity to debate these important matters and that has certainly been a success. I am pleased to have given the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) his first opportunity to address the House from the Back Benches for more than 23 years. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Select Committee, the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) and for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby), for their support for-or rather opposition to-the amendment, which none of us wants to see become part of the Bill but which we are all grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this afternoon. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Amendment proposed: 4, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 3 to 7.- (Mr Cash.)

The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 314.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Amess: Before we come to the next group of amendments, I have the following announcement to make regarding deferred Divisions. On the question relating to local elections in Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 337 and the Noes were 217, so the Question was agreed to. On the question relating to Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the Ayes were 338 and the Noes were 216, so the Question was agreed to. On the question relating to health and safety and the EPR nuclear reactor, the Ayes were 520 and the Noes were 27, so the Question was agreed to. On the question relating to health and safety and the AP1000 nuclear reactor, the Ayes were 517 and the Noes were 26, so the Question was agreed to.
	 [The Division list s are published at the end of today's debates.]

William Cash: I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out from 'Government' to end of line 14.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 22, page 2, line 12, leave out '14' and insert 'ten working'.
	Amendment 36, page 2, line 14, at end insert-
	'(2A) In reckoning for the purposes of subsection 2(b), no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is prorogued or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.'.
	Amendment 37, page 2, line 14, at end insert-
	'(2B) Where the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, the Prime Minister shall tender his resignation to Her Majesty within a period of seven days of the motion being passed.
	(2C) On tendering his resignation under subsection (2B), it shall be a duty on the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty to appoint as his successor the person who appears to him most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons.'.
	Amendment 25, page 2, line 24, at end add-
	'(6A) In this section a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government shall be-
	(a) in the terms This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government or
	(b) in the terms This House has no confidence in the Prime Minister.'.

William Cash: During the previous debate, we covered an enormous amount of the ground contained in this group of amendments, so purely to clarify the position I should say that, although the previous amendments dealt with early parliamentary elections when the motion might as well be a confidence motion but of course might not, this group relates to a motion of no confidence. I accept the Minister's point that such a motion would require a simple majority, and I do not need to say any more on that.
	I have already explained the variety of confidence motions, but I am afraid I have the gravest disagreement with the Minister about his definition of a confidence motion. I am very concerned, indeed, and for reasons that I shall go into when we reach the next amendments on the potential role of the judiciary. It is impossible for the Minister to explain what a vote of no confidence is, and he certainly has not done so today.
	It is extremely difficult to define a vote of no confidence, because it covers a vote on an Adjournment, on the reduction of a Minister's salary, on Suez, on the defeat of the Callaghan Government-and Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister-by a majority of one, and many other situations. There is a raft of different definitions, and what troubles me is that right at the heart of the matter is one simple proposition, summarised by Leo Amery on 7 May 1940, when he got up during a very charged debate on the Norway issue and said to Neville Chamberlain:
	In the name of God, go.-[ Official Report, 7 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1150.]
	Although the Government won that vote of confidence, because enough craven people were prepared to vote for them, Chamberlain knew the game was up. The confidence motion was therefore-even in that case-defeated, and he went. The definition of a confidence motion is therefore extremely uncertain. It boils down to the fact that there is such concern about, and lack of confidence in, the Government-let alone the Prime Minister-that he has to go and, therefore, the Government as well. The two things run together.

Eleanor Laing: The issue was raised at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Portcullis House last week. Currently, there is something of a constitutional crisis in Canada over exactly the same questions: what is a vote of confidence, when is a vote a vote of confidence, how is it defined and who has the power to make that definition? Surely, it would be wrong if our Parliament got into the mess that Canada is in.

William Cash: As the former adviser to Quebec in the Canadian constitutional dispute of 1982, I am not unfamiliar with the problems that arise in the Canadian constitution. Of course, Canada has a Governor-General, and there is a completely different situation there. There was a similar situation in Australia some time ago involving Gough Whitlam.
	I would strongly deny, however, that we should be guided by what goes on in other countries: the real issue is what we do in this House. We have an established position that is dependent on the views of the House. My strongest objection to the phrasing of the previous amendment was that it referred to the number of seats in the House rather than those voting in the House. There is a big difference. In Germany, the question of whether a Government might fall would depend on the number of persons present if, under its written constitution, two thirds vote in a particular division, whereas in the case of this coalition Government, it would be dependent on the number of seats. It is necessary to take into account the Deputy Speakers and the people who might be absent. In fact, the clause includes, in brackets, the words including vacant seats, so the arithmetic is extraordinarily difficult. The real question is whether the Government have lost confidence.

David Nuttall: Would not one solution be to stipulate that any motion of no confidence must specifically relate to this clause, so that there could be no doubt that the motion before the House was covered by the Bill as enacted?

William Cash: That is an interesting idea, but that is not what the Bill says, although I am not criticising my hon. Friend for that. The Bill simply says that
	on a specified day the House passed a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government (as then constituted).
	I described in an earlier debate the shenanigans of the 14-day period after a day had ended without the House having passed any motion expressing confidence in any Government of Her Majesty. What happens next is that all these people get together in a huddle and then rush up and down Downing street and Whitehall going to see the Cabinet Secretary and receiving some instructions about what they should do, in his view, if they want a stable Government. The net result is that we have a completely chaotic situation driven by behind-the-scenes, unknown negotiations that are then announced-

Edward Leigh: Does my hon. Friend remember-happy days-when we were Maastricht rebels? We defeated the Government on the paving motion, and they then brought in another motion that was related to a no confidence motion, and we were all brought to heel in that way. Although I would not want to encourage that sort of behaviour, at least it was clear, was it not? The Government were saying, This is where we are-we stand here. At least that made for strong government.

William Cash: There is one simple reason why some of us voted for the confidence motion on Maastricht. I remember pointing to the late John Smith, who was then Leader of the Opposition, and saying, There is only one reason why I am going to vote for the present Government on this occasion, and that is because you are more of a federalist than they are. That is why that vote went that way-it is as simple as that.
	This is not only about the shenanigans with the Whips, the patronage, the promises, the chicanery behind closed doors, and all that, leading to yet another coalition agreement, no doubt based on different principles, in order to stay in power. The other aspect-we can get to it later, which is why I am about to bring my remarks to an end-is that it is dependent on the Speaker of the House of Commons issuing a certificate certifying the motion of no confidence. That is an extremely important matter, which we need to discuss properly after the debate on this group of amendments.
	I think I have spoken quite enough for the time being, and I would be very glad to expedite matters by moving on as soon as possible to the next issue. I think we will have a very interesting and, if I may so, seminal debate on the role of the judiciary in relation to parliamentary sovereignty.

Chris Bryant: The last moments of the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) sounded a bit like a trailer for the next debate. If he does not mind we will stick with this one for the moment, although he is absolutely right to say that the way in which all the different elements of the Bill tumble together in a concatenation will make for a fairly dangerous precedent if we are not given further clarification.
	It is important that we establish some basic first principles on no confidence motions. First, the Government should at all times enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. It is important to state that that should be a matter solely for the House of Commons, no matter whether we change the composition of the House of Lords in future, as I hope we do. I note that motions of no confidence have been tabled and debated in the House of Lords, but that is inappropriate. The elected House of Commons, the primary Chamber, should determine whether the Government enjoy the confidence of Parliament.
	Secondly, it is important to say that just because the Government lose a vote, they do not necessarily have to fall. That is an important principle because I think that there are only two Prime Ministers since the second world war who have not lost votes at some point. Even Churchill lost one vote in his period as Prime Minister after the war. Attlee lost four, even when he had a majority, and Wilson lost 31, six in his first time as Prime Minister and 25 in his second. Callaghan lost 34, none of which did for him-well, obviously one did in the end. It is a sign of a healthy relationship between the Executive and Parliament if the legislature is able to defeat the Government on occasion on bits and pieces of legislation.
	Obviously there comes a point at which a Government might not be able to continue, for instance because they have not been able to get their Budget through in any shape or form, or because they cannot take through some major piece of legislation. In practice, as the hon. Member for Stone mentioned, what has normally happened in the past is that the Government have brought forward legislation and then lost a vote on an amendment or some motion. Often, the Opposition have then tabled a motion of no confidence the next day.
	The convention of the House-I note that it is only a convention-is that the Government automatically give precedence to a motion of no confidence, so that it can be debated immediately. It is obviously in the Government's interests to resolve the matter of whether the House has confidence in them. I merely note that now we are putting elements of the matter into statute rather than depending on convention and Standing Orders, there is no provision to ensure that a motion of no confidence is guaranteed precedence and can be debated swiftly, one would hope the next day.
	Governments have lost large numbers of votes since the second world war and before, and that is important. Some of them have been finance votes, and it is perfectly satisfactory for some finance votes to be lost, for instance on stamp duty or the rate of income tax. On 16 July 1974, the Government lost a vote on a Liberal amendment to the Finance Bill. On 8 May 1978 the Conservatives moved that income tax be cut from 34% to 33%, which was carried against the Government's wishes. On 10 May that year another Conservative amendment to the Finance Bill was agreed to, and the Government lost another motion the next day in relation to sending the Finance Bill off to Committee.
	I do not believe that such losses should of necessity mean that the Government should fall, or indeed that they have lost the confidence of the House in its totality. I also do not believe that a motion to censure an individual member of the Government should, of necessity, lead to the fall of the Government, a new general election or to inciting the provisions in the Bill. There have been occasions in the past, when, effectively, a motion to censure an individual member of the Government has been so considered. The last occasion when a Government who had a majority of seats in the House of Commons lost a motion of no confidence was in 1895. The motion was on reducing the salary of the Secretary of State for War, Mr Campbell-Bannerman, by £100 because he had not provided enough cordite to the troops. The motion was carried. Even though Campbell-Bannerman was probably the most popular Member of the Government at the time, he resigned and the Prime Minister decided that he would consider it to have been a motion of confidence, and the Government resigned. The incoming Conservative Government decided to seek a Dissolution and hold an election and the Conservatives came to power.

Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are rules and conventions about when a motion before this House is a confidence motion and when it is not? Twenty years ago this week, I recall the then Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, saying that she was going to stand down as Prime Minister. The Opposition then tabled a motion of no confidence in the Government, which was quite rightly debated as such on the Floor of the House because we were at a point of crisis. The Government, headed as it still was by Margaret Thatcher, won that vote very distinctly, but it was a motion of confidence. There are strict rules about when it is and when it is not.

Chris Bryant: I do not think that the hon. Lady is right about the strict rule. Her memory of the occasion is right; it was Thursday 22 November 1990. The motion was very clear. It said:
	That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.-[ Official Report, 22 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 439.]
	The debate was led by Neil Kinnock, now Lord Kinnock, and the motion was defeated by 367 votes to 247. The hon. Lady makes my point for me. The rules have been very nebulous except where the words are very clear on the Order Paper. Very often, the words on the Order Paper have not been clear.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I made a mistake when I talked about a strict rule. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. The point is that there are rules and there are conventions, but they are not sufficiently clear, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this point.

Chris Bryant: I am delighted that we agree because I am sure that that will mean that the hon. Lady will join me in the Division Lobby in a wee while.
	Clearly, conventions have operated in this House, but they have wandered with the age. There was a period when there were frequent motions of no confidence and the Opposition thought that it was a good way in which to transact business. For the past 15 years or so, we have not had motions of no confidence, largely because the Government have enjoyed fairly large majorities. Another reason, I suspect, is that there is nothing worse than losing a motion of no confidence and the Government tend to unite in their confidence in themselves. I will come later to discuss one of the dangers of this nebulous relationship. All too often, as the hon. Member for Stone said, the Prime Minister of the day starts saying, I really want to get this piece of legislation through. If we don't get this through, there will be a general election and I will have to resign. Effectively, it's a motion of no confidence. All too often, pieces of legislation or votes are carried because of the threat of the no confidence motion. It would be better if one had clarity in statute as to what constituted a motion of no confidence.
	There is one exception to that: motions of censure. Obviously, such motions can relate to an individual member of the Government, the Speaker or any Member of the House. Motions of censure against members of the Government can be made in relation to specific actions that they have or have not taken. The hon. Member for Stone referred to the motion of censure on Suez, but there have been others. On occasion, such motions have been treated as motions of confidence, but they should always be treated as such when they are against the Prime Minister.
	One could argue that the two motions in 1924 that constituted motions of no confidence fall into a similar category. On 21 January 1924, after the first general election of that year, the Opposition carried an amendment to the Loyal Address, so that it stated:
	Your Majesty's present advisers have not the confidence of this House.-[ Official Report, 21 January 1924; Vol. 169, c. 685.]
	To all intents and purposes-as plain as a pikestaff-that was a motion of no confidence. Stanley Baldwin subsequently resigned as Prime Minister, but there was no general election, and the Labour party took over, assisted by the Liberals, in the first minority Government. One day-who knows?-that may come to pass again. I warn Conservative colleagues that that arrangement did not last very long. On 8 October 1924, the specific censure motion on the Prime Minister's refusal to continue a petition against a journal was not carried, but the appointment of a Select Committee was carried. The Prime Minister determined that that was a matter of confidence and decided to resign, and we all know the result.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely interesting case. He has demonstrated that motions of confidence come in all shapes and sizes-the essence of such motions is whether the House of Commons has lost confidence in the Government-but the question whether the courts will get their hands on such matters is the big issue, and that troubles me. However interesting it may be to go through the various facets of this group of amendments, if we are to have a vote on the courts, we must get on to the next group of amendments, because we need to debate that.

Chris Bryant: I very much hope that we do. There are two elements to why this debate matters: first, the role of the Speaker, and secondly, the role of the courts, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants to debate.
	Contrary to what the Minister said, the Opposition rather than the Prime Minister often determine what is and is not a motion of confidence. As we heard, the Prime Minister could decide that the question whether the House adjourns is a matter of confidence, or he or she could refer to minor legislation as such. However, the Opposition can not only table a motion of no confidence, but declare that another matter is a matter of confidence. Effectively, they can demand that the Prime Minister address such a matter personally.
	On 15 January 1972, Second Reading of the European Communities Act 1972, which I suspect the hon. Member for Stone knows well, was declared by the then Prime Minister to be a matter of confidence. He said that if he lost, there would be a general election. Undoubtedly, some decided to support him for that very reason.

Neil Carmichael: Surely this debate about votes of no confidence is really all about the exercise of the Prime Minister's power, because as the hon. Gentleman has just implied, it is the Prime Minister who decides whether we will have a general election. When Ted Heath used that threat in 1972, he clearly did so quite deliberately, in order to force his side to vote in favour of joining the European Union, and it was his decision whether there would be a general election. Given that, I cannot really see why the hon. Gentleman is going in the direction that he is.

Chris Bryant: Because the legislation is changing that provision in two regards, one of which is the subject of an amendment in this group. The Government-I think rightly-want to say that after a motion of no confidence, there could be two weeks during which the House could, if it wanted, pass a motion of confidence in either the same Government, presumably, or another Government, with either the same Prime Minister or a different Prime Minister, with a different set of ministerial colleagues. That is a change from the situation thus far. There are those who want to remove that two-week element from the Bill. We on the Labour Benches disagree with them, so we will not be supporting that amendment.
	There were two occasions, on 11 March 1976 and 20 July 1977, when the motion That this House do now adjourn was declared by the then Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition to be a motion of no confidence, first by Harold Wilson and then by Mrs Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher. On occasion, the mere involvement of the Prime Minister, by turning up at the Dispatch Box to defend a particular motion or piece of legislation, has effectively turned it into a motion of confidence, and that has transpired during the debate. As we are abolishing the Prime Minister's right to dissolve Parliament and placing that right in the hands of Parliament-we are putting that in statute-it would be better to state in the Bill, in clear language, precisely what constitutes a motion of no confidence, so that there can be no doubt.
	I say that for several reasons. First, it would remove the Prime Minister's power to force legislation through by calling it a matter of confidence. Perhaps Members on the Government Benches have not got used to this yet, but when we were in government, it was a fairly common occurrence whenever there was a difficult piece of legislation-whether on trade unions, the war in Iraq or whatever-for the Prime Minister to say, not necessarily in public but certainly in private, that it was a matter of confidence. That has led to some bad legislation in the past, which was certainly not helpful to us, and I am sure that there will be plenty of moments like that coming along for Government Members.

Mark Durkan: Just to reinforce the hon. Gentleman's argument, a case in point when legislation was forced through with the threat that it would be treated as a confidence issue was the Counter-Terrorism Bill allowing for 42-day detention. The then Prime Minister made it clear in his pleadings to me that it would be treated as a confidence motion. He said, Do you want an election? If you turn up and vote against, there will be an election. He tried threatening me and his Back-Bench colleagues with an election, precisely abusing the notion of a confidence motion, which is why amendment 25, which the hon. Gentleman has tabled, is so good.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He is absolutely right. However, I must confess to the Committee that Prime Ministers rarely said that to me personally, because I was too ludicrously loyal. Almost before the Prime Minister had even thought that a vote might be difficult, I had already decided I would be supportive. In fact, I rarely got to see the Prime Minister for that very reason. I would therefore advise Government Members that if they want to see the Prime Minister on a regular basis, they should start wondering whether they will support Government provisions. However, the serious point is that the freedom of individual Back Benchers will be tethered, because they will constantly be persuaded by the argument, You don't want a general election, do you? You must support this piece of legislation, because otherwise I'm going to call it a motion of no confidence.
	The second reason touches on an important element, on which the Minister got into difficult waters-I know that he does not think that he did, but others of us do, and I think that the courts will feel that too. He said that it would be for the Speaker to decide and to announce before any debate what counts as a motion of confidence or, presumably, a motion of no confidence. A minor point is whether a motion of confidence will count as a motion of no confidence if it is not carried. In the past it has, but I am not sure whether the Government intend that.
	It would be wholly inappropriate for the Chair to say at the beginning of, for example, a Budget debate that if the House does not carry the Budget and if the Finance Bill falls on Second Reading or Third Reading that would be a motion of confidence in the Government, so he would issue a certificate. The Minister was sighing but is now smiling, and we prefer the smiling. I accept that in that example I am imagining what might happen, but I am more concerned what would happen if hon. Members chose to ask the Speaker whether a motion of censure counted as a motion of confidence. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that the Speaker would be required to adjudicate on whether it was a motion of no confidence. That would be wholly inappropriate, particularly at a time of political uncertainty and high drama, because the Speaker would lose his or her impartiality and be drawn into the political mêlée, and that would be wrong.
	Amendment 5 would remove the two-week provision for a new Government to be formed on the basis of a confidence motion. We may have to return to some of these issues on Report, and I would be grateful if the Minister will clarify whether, if that second motion fell, there could then be a subsequent two weeks. We quite like the provision for two weeks-it seems sensible if an alternative coalition or Government could be formed. I see some hon. Members casting a wry glance as though I am eyeing up the Liberal Democrats. We are not getting on very well with the Liberal Democrats at the moment, so I do not think he needs to worry about that, but obviously if the offer is on the table, we will take it.
	Amendment 22 is a minor one, and I would be interested in the Government's view. The clause refers to the provision of 14 days being allowed after a motion of no confidence. We have suggested that it should be 10 working days simply because all other references in the Bill are to working days. I suppose it is possible that the period could coincide with a royal wedding, a day of thanksgiving, a bank holiday, Easter or Christmas, and it would seem to be sensible to specify working days instead of days.
	However, we have not moved to the suggestion in other Committees of 10 sitting days, because if the House were adjourned, there would be a specific problem. I hope that the Minister will say what he thinks should happen if the House had been adjourned for a recess-for example, the day after a motion of no confidence. Should there be a requirement for the Government to bring the House back, and should there be a specific provision for the Speaker to be able to require the House to be recalled within the two weeks? We will come to Prorogation later.

Caroline Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Amess. Have you have received any indication from the Home Secretary that she might be coming to the House tonight to make a statement on whether she believes that police tactics outside the House are proportionate? Many hundreds of students and schoolchildren have been kettled for more than four hours and, according to the police, will be out there for several more hours in the freezing cold. Whatever one thinks about the student protest, holding people against their will for no reason is neither proportionate nor effective.

David Amess: The whole House has heard what the hon. Lady has said, particularly those on the Treasury Bench, but that is not a point of order.

Chris Bryant: Thank you, Mr Amess. I thought that the hon. Lady was intervening on me, but I soon realised that she was not.
	I have commented on amendment 22, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond. Amendment 36 would provide extra time, if the House were already adjourned or prorogued, for the House to come up with a new motion of confidence. In some ways, this mirrors quite a lot of existing legislation relating to Dissolution and Prorogation and to the use of extraordinary powers. For instance, if the reserve forces were to be summoned when the House was adjourned or prorogued, there is a special power for Parliament to be called back early. The amendment seems sensible, and I hope that the Minister will respond to these points before we decide whether we want to vote on it.
	Amendment 37 insists that the Prime Minister should resign within seven days of a motion of no confidence being passed. Again, I hope that the Minister will give the Committee his views on this, because this was an element of the Conservative manifesto in the general election. We might therefore want to return to the matter on Report. What does he understand would happen to the Prime Minister if a motion of no confidence in him personally, as opposed to a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, were carried? What does he think would happen if a motion of no confidence just in the Government were carried?
	Our amendment 25 would provide two categories of no confidence motions. The first would be expressed in the terms:
	This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
	The second would have to be expressed in the terms:
	This House has no confidence in the Prime Minister.
	That obviously precludes any of the other elements. I think it would be clearer for the House if we set down in statute the stipulation that the clause would click in only in those two instances, as set out in the Bill, and that only in those circumstances would the Speaker be able to issue a certificate.
	I understand that some hon. Members think that there should be great leniency and that it should be entirely up to the Prime Minister to determine whether there is a motion of no confidence. I believe that, especially as we move towards a system in which the Government assert that the Prime Minister is relinquishing the power to dissolve Parliament himself, it makes far more sense to make these matters clear in the Bill, rather than dragging the Speaker into what is and is not a motion of no confidence.

Thomas Docherty: rose-

David Amess: I call Tommy Docherty.

Thomas Docherty: It might help the House to know that the Scottish Parliament has very specific rules about what counts as a motion of no confidence in the Government. For example, failing to get a Budget through does not count, as we saw just two years ago when the Scottish National party Government could not get their Budget through on the first attempt.

Chris Bryant: I think my hon. Friend normally thinks of himself as a Thomas, rather than a Tommy, Mr Amess. He is similar to Tommy McAvoy, but not quite the same. I think he will take that as a compliment, but I am not entirely sure. He will doubtless tell me later. He is absolutely right about the Scottish Parliament.
	The whole thrust of my argument is that, in the past, the House has for the most part proceeded on the basis of gentleman's agreements and of conventions that are not written down anywhere, and on the basis that Erskine May is a more important bible than statute law in relation to these matters. However, we are now fixing the length of our Parliaments and moving towards determining many other elements of our constitutional settlement in statute law, and it is vital that we should be clear about what we mean by a motion of no confidence.
	I fully accept that other Members might want to include certain other categories. The one other aspect that might be considered always to be a motion of no confidence-so it should perhaps be included-is the acceptance of an amendment to the Loyal Address after a general election. The Bill does not provide for circumstances in which a new Government are formed by a motion of confidence, although that happens elsewhere-in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, for example, where the First Ministers are appointed by a vote.

Thomas Docherty: For further clarification, it is not only the First Minister but each of the Ministers that he or she subsequently appoints who require a formal vote in the Scottish Parliament. Some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen might find that to be a useful mechanism.

Chris Bryant: You would rule me out of order, Mr Amess, if I debated whether there should be confirmation hearings for all Ministers and related matters. I understand why some might say that my amendment could be improved upon by including a third category of no confidence motion-one relating to the tabling of an amendment to the Loyal Address at the beginning of a new Parliament. To those who think that way, I say that it would be better to carry the amendment today so that we improve the legislation and then move further forward to suggest amendments to amplify that provision on Report.
	With that, I conclude. I shall want to press amendment 25. If you took the view that we could divide on that amendment later, Mr Amess, I would be grateful.

Dominic Raab: This is my first opportunity to speak on the Bill. Before I deal with the specific clause and amendments, I want to say that I generally support the idea of having fixed-term Parliaments because it will promote the basic concept of electoral fairness, end some of the deal-making and lack of scrutiny we have seen inherent in the wash-up procedures, improve electoral planning for the Electoral Commission and avoid some of the return to hype and confusion that we saw dominate the last three years of the previous Parliament.
	In one area, however, I have to reserve my unequivocal support. That concerns the consequences of a successful vote of no confidence in a Government. It must be right for such votes to continue to be decided by a simple majority. If a Government cannot command the support of a simple majority of elected representatives, they should fall. I welcome the Government's withdrawal of the qualified majority provision that was previously under consideration. However, clause 2(2)(b) sets out a novel and rather anomalous parliamentary procedure.
	Reference has been made to this country's practice, which is that a successful mid-term vote of no confidence leads to an immediate election. In the last century, there were just two examples of that, both of which led to the announcement of Dissolution the following day. The exception-I stand to be corrected if I am wrong-was after the election of December 1923, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. A minority Conservative Government led by Stanley Baldwin switched to a minority Labour Government led by Ramsay MacDonald. However, that took place immediately after an election, so it arguably reflected rather than ignored the shifting will of the electorate.
	Practice therefore shows that this convention is reasonably clear, yet clause 2(2)(b) undoes it. It provides a window of up to 14 days after a no confidence vote before a general election must be called. I stand to be corrected again and ask the Minister for some clarification, but the aim appears to be to allow the formation of an alternative Government without an election. The mechanism appears almost explicitly designed to facilitate a third party leaving a coalition in order to form an entirely new Government of an entirely different character-mid-term and without seeking a democratic mandate for such a profound change. I see no sound reason or any good justification for such an inherently undemocratic device-even one formulated in permissive terms. I see only the risk of this clause being used for political expediency, sidestepping the democratic process.
	It might be said that the existing arrangements already allow for this to happen, but they do not encourage it and they do not institutionalise it. At best, this provision is unnecessary; at worst, it is undemocratic. I would therefore be grateful for some further explanation and clarification from Ministers of the explicit purpose of this window- and, indeed, of why it is necessary at all.

Eleanor Laing: Amendments 36 and 37 were also submitted by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I am pleased to say that, unlike the last group of amendments, these are amendments with which I agree. I apologise again on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who would have liked to be here to speak on the Committee's behalf. I am pleased that other Select Committee members are present, along with other hon. Members who have supported the amendments.
	The purpose of amendments 36 and 37 is to improve the Bill and help the Government to clarify a very important issue. There cannot be anything more important than knowing when the House is facing a motion of confidence in the Government and when it is not. This is not a matter that ought to be left open to speculation. When we face a confidence motion we need to know that it is a confidence motion, and-as has been said by Members on both sides of the Committee-it should not be used by the Whips as a tool to coerce people to vote for a particular issue lest their Government fall if the vote be lost. A motion of confidence is not a tool of the Whips; it is a very important convention of our constitution.
	Amendment 36 is designed to address the Select Committee's finding in our pre-legislative scrutiny report that, under the Bill,
	the requirement that the House would need to show that it had confidence in any alternative government within fourteen days to avoid an early general election could be made impossible if the Government ensured that the House was adjourned or prorogued for any substantial length of time.
	The amendment would prevent the incumbent Government from using the prerogative power of prorogation to frustrate the formation of an alternative Government, which they could do under the Bill as it is currently drafted. At present, the Government could get around the provisions in clause 2 by simply proroguing Parliament.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This is one of my biggest worries. Ministers may say that the Prime Minister would never do that-that he or she could not possibly choose to use such an evil power-but the truth is that the power to prorogue lies completely, utterly and solely with the Government. I think it important for us to remove that power from Government and put it in the hands of the House, just as the power to adjourn the House for recesses lies with the House.

Eleanor Laing: Indeed, and that power has been used by the Government many times. I have noticed over the past 13 years that there have been very long recesses when it suited the last Government for the House of Commons not to be sitting and able to hold them to account. It is within the power of the Government to do that, and although I have accused the last Labour Government of behaving in a way that could be described as dishonourable in that respect, I would be the first to say that other Governments have been able to use the power in the same way.

Thomas Docherty: As I am a new Member, will the hon. Lady tell me which Government introduced the September sittings to break up the very long summer recess?

Eleanor Laing: I concede that point to the hon. Gentleman. It was right to introduce September sittings. When I was a new Member, serious events were occurring in Northern Ireland in, I think, 1998 and the House was recalled in September. We flew in from all over the world-well, from Millport and similar places. We all flew back from far-flung places, even Essex. It was realised that having a very long summer recess means the Government are not being held to account and that this House is not the forum and focus for national debate that it should be.
	However, I put it to Members that there is an even worse possible outcome from these proposed measures. I know the current Government under the current leadership of the current Prime Minister and the Minister who is currently sitting on the Front Bench would never behave in a dishonourable fashion, but that is not the point. The point is that legislation passed by this House should make sure that no Government can ever use their prerogative power of prorogation-I have got better at saying such tongue-twisters during the day-to frustrate the formation of an alternative Government.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady is right again, and she is very good at saying the prerogative power of prorogation. The additional power the Government currently have is the power to decide whether a motion gains precedence on the Order Paper or not. One of the difficulties with the current draft of the Bill is that there is no provision to ensure that a prospective new Prime Minister trying to form a Government would be able to table a motion of confidence.

Eleanor Laing: Yes, the shadow Minister is correct. I am sure the Minister will have very good responses to these questions when he replies, but it is important that the House addresses them, and that is why the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has tabled these amendments as a result of its pre-legislative scrutiny report.
	Amendment 36 would, in essence, encourage the incumbent Government to keep the House sitting, and not use the prerogative power of prorogation for purposes for which it should not be used.
	Amendment 37 reflects the Committee's findings that the Bill still leaves to unwritten convention the requirement that a Government should resign if they lose the confidence of the House. The Deputy Prime Minister said to the House in July this year that the Bill would
	strengthen the power of this House to throw out a Government through a motion of no confidence-[ Official Report, 5 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 32.]
	However, although that might have been the Deputy Prime Minister's intention, the Bill does not do that. Amendment 37 would require the Prime Minister to resign within seven days of a motion of no confidence being passed, and to advise the Queen to appoint a new Prime Minister who had the best chance of securing the House's confidence.
	The Government's response to the Committee's report appears to show that they do not intend that an incumbent Government faced with a successful vote of no confidence should be required to resign. The response states:
	A Government is able now, and would be able under the Bill, to remain in office after a no confidence motion and contest a general election.
	That is a very serious state of affairs. The Committee carefully examined the consequences of the Bill before putting that in its report, but the fact is that the Bill will allow a Government to remain in office after a no confidence motion and to contest a general election.
	That raises a number of constitutional questions, and I wish to put four to the Minister. First, do the Government intend that the incumbent Government should be able to force an early general election following a vote of no confidence even where an alternative Government with a potential majority in the House are clearly waiting in the wings?
	My second question relates to a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred to: have the Government considered that an incumbent Government might engineer a vote of no confidence in themselves, requiring only a simple majority, and then simply sit it out for two weeks to force an early general election? Once again, although I have every confidence that the current Government and the Minister at the Dispatch Box would not behaviour dishonourably, the Bill gives a future Government the power to do that.
	As I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, some Members of the Canadian Parliament raised this issue at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference held here last week. There is a constitutional difficulty in Canada at the moment, because more than one vote of confidence has been held at the instigation of the Government. My hon. Friend said that he is not particularly interested in examples from other countries, and I agree that just because something happens in Canada does not mean that it will happen here. However, Canada's constitution and Government are constructed similarly to ours and we ought to learn lessons or at least look at the warning signs from a place whose legislature is so similar.
	Thirdly, have the Government considered that an incumbent Prime Minister whose party has narrowly lost a general election might refuse to resign and instead choose to face the House of Commons, as Stanley Baldwin did in January 1924-the shadow Minister referred to that-and as the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) could, in theory, have done this May? A vote of no confidence in those circumstances would give the incumbent Prime Minister the choice of either resigning or forcing another general election.
	An incumbent Prime Minister would not be able to exercise that choice at the moment, because the convention is that the monarch, under her existing prerogative powers, would almost certainly not agree to dissolve Parliament so soon after an election where there was a viable alternative Government. Nevertheless, the Bill, as drafted, would leave the question open, and it is our duty as a Parliament not to put the monarch under pressure to make a decision; we should never have a situation where the monarch has to exercise her prerogative power in order to keep the incumbent Prime Minister in line, as it were.
	This is another matter that could easily be dealt with by amendment 37, which states:
	Where the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, the Prime Minister shall tender his resignation to Her Majesty within a period of seven days of the motion being passed.
	The amendment is quite simple and, again, is not intended to run a coach and horses through the Bill-far from it. As I have said on many occasions, I support the Bill and I want it to go through, because it is necessary for the stability of the Government and of the coalition at a time when we need stability. What the Select Committee is trying to do through these amendments is simply assist the Government to improve the Bill.
	My final question to the Minister is on how the Bill strengthens the power of the House to throw out a Government by a motion of no confidence. The Select Committee considered that question as carefully as we could in the time given for pre-legislative scrutiny and there is a general opinion that the Bill does not strengthen the power of the House to throw out a Government on a motion of no confidence. I would argue, however, that the House has at present a pretty good power that it can exercise to throw out a Government on a motion of no confidence. I do not believe that the Bill strengthens that position and the Deputy Prime Minister ought not to say that it does when it does not.

Mark Durkan: With the exception of amendment 5, the amendments basically try to make the Bill more complete and more cogent by ensuring that there is less ambiguity about convention. That is particularly the case with amendment 25, which would remove from the Prime Minister and the Whips the ability to whisper confidence and no confidence in people's ears, to play the question like a joker that is wild and to use it in relation to any issue that is uncomfortable for the Government or on which Back Benchers are exercising their consciences and discretion.
	I gave the example in an intervention earlier of the way in which that process was used with the then Counter-Terrorism Bill. Labour MPs who had said that they would vote in good conscience against 42-day detention were prevailed on with the threat of its being a matter of confidence or no confidence. The then Prime Minister said to me that he would not even table a motion of no confidence if he lost that vote, but that he would deem it to be a vote of no confidence and would go straight away. In the first conversation, he said that the vote would have been followed by a no confidence motion but later on, he said that he would not even bother with a no confidence motion and would go straight to an election. I know that that threat brought some Back Benchers into line and they voted against their consciences and against their stated intentions.
	If we are serious about altering the balance of the powers in the hands of the Executive and the Whips, we should support amendment 25, which states that a no confidence motion for the purposes of the Bill must explicitly be a no confidence motion in either the Prime Minister or the Government. Making it clear and explicit in those terms removes the ambiguity and bullying element and restores clarity.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) has made strong arguments for amendments 36 and 37. They would remove possible ambiguity and abuse as well as a lot of confusion and speculation that might arise about otherwise serious circumstances. I commend all those amendments to the Committee.
	Another virtue of amendment 25 is that it would go some way to mitigating many of the concerns about the Speaker's certificate and the challenges and questions that might be raised about it, which are legitimately the subject of subsequent amendments. Because I care for the issues raised by those subsequent amendments, I would make the point that amendment 25 is relevant in containing the problems with the Speaker's certificate that they aim to address.

Sheila Gilmore: As a new Member, I think that many of the public will be quite puzzled by some of the matters that are being discussed and will probably be quite surprised that there was such a lack of clarity about what a matter of confidence is. Given that the question of confidence in a Government is fundamental, as was expressed eloquently earlier by many speakers, it is very important that we get this right.
	I have not been through some of the experiences that others clearly have, but I have heard them talk about them and it seems wrong that such a question should be used as a sword of Damocles over Members who might have legitimate views about a particular part of a policy-even if it is the policy of a Government whom they support. Had I been a Member of the previous Parliament, I am sure that detention would have been an issue on which I would not have supported the Government's position. So I can see exactly why it is right to have a definition.
	Some of the problems we face with the Bill come back to fundamental issues that were raised by the Select Committee of which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and I have the pleasure to be a part. Constitutional reform in this Parliament seems to be backwards-forwards, with little bits of constitutional reform being picked up here and there without any real view or vision of what this is all about and why we are making those particular bits of constitutional reform and not others. Should we be considering more fundamental issues? I know that the Chair of the Select Committee would be very keen for this Parliament to consider whether we should have a written constitution and if so what should be in it. Perhaps we should do that rather than picking off pieces of legislation here and there. We had similar issues with the previous constitutional Bill, which addressed a number of important issues but in a ham-fisted way. It put together a number of issues that have since caused a lot of Members in this House and, I suspect, in the other place, some difficulty.
	In our discussions on this Bill, many people have spoken up clearly in favour of fixed-term Parliaments but have not liked other parts of the Bill or have found them unacceptable. If we had come at this-

David Amess: Order. I have been listening to the hon. Lady very carefully, but she is beginning to use general language and I ask her to draw her remarks more closely to the amendments we are debating.

Sheila Gilmore: My comments arose out of the confidence issue. If we have a clear definition in relation to confidence at least, the proceedings of the House will be clearer to the public, which is important. If we agreed to the definition in the amendment, we would all be clear about when we were dealing with such an important matter. That is a very simple change.

Chris Bryant: As my hon. Friend is on the Select Committee, will she comment on its recommendation that there should be greater clarity regarding the circumstances in which a Government lose the confidence of the House and when that would trigger a general election? Were she and members of the Committee satisfied with the Government's response to that recommendation? This still seems immensely ambiguous to me.

Sheila Gilmore: Members of the Committee were dissatisfied with various Government responses, including that one. It was partly because of the lack of clarity in this area that we came up with a number of amendments, including some of those being debated.
	This is a simple matter. Let me bring it back to where the public are coming from and what they would want us to do. I think they would want us to produce something out of the Bill, even though it is not an ideal way of going about constitutional reform, that is simple, clear and understandable, and we should proceed on that basis.

Thomas Docherty: I regret that I have been unable to be here as much today as on other days, but hon. Members will appreciate that I had Select Committee business. I have been fascinated to see so many Liberal Democrats here. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on why a record number of Lib Dems have turned up to hear how to bring about the collapse of a Government now or in future. I am sure he will feed all this back to the Deputy Prime Minister when he next sees him.
	I shall try to stick to the issue at hand, Mr Amess. I strongly welcome the work of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and it is a matter of some regret on both sides of the House that the Deputy Prime Minister did not take the time for any other pre-legislative scrutiny. Opposition Members and several Government Members have tried to strengthen the Bill. Of course, we are not opposed to the principle of fixed-term Parliaments, although we would prefer a term of four years to five. Our aim is to try to make sure that we have clarity, so it is disappointing that we have not yet heard from the Minister any of the necessary clarity about what would constitute a vote of no confidence.
	Obviously, as a new Member, I do not have the same experience and length of service as many Members on both sides of the House, but having recently read Mr Alistair Campbell's Diaries-an excellent read-I was struck by the account of an occasion when the previous Conservative Government threatened to use a no confidence motion to stay in office. I am sure the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others can confirm that. You, too, Mr Amess, may recall those days.
	It seems to me a slightly grubby, if not shabby, state of affairs for a Prime Minister of whatever hue to try to drive through legislation by using such a threat.

Gordon Birtwistle: We heard earlier from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman about the grubby attitudes of Prime Ministers who threatened that losing a vote would lead to a general election. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that history repeated itself on many occasions during the last 13 years? Does he condemn that sort of attitude?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. As I was not a Member during the last 13 years, I shall have to wait for the second volume of Mr Campbell's Diaries. However, the hon. Gentleman's point is not invalid. No Prime Minister of whatever hue should be allowed to hold a gun to the head of his own side. As much as I am a fan of our Whips Office-we have excellent Whips and several of them are hovering near me, so I may make that point again-as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has already said, if the Bill is not clarified, which I hope the Minister will do tonight, the Whips Offices will have an immense power of threat. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) pointed out earlier in his excellent remarks, there was at least one occasion when legislation that, on reflection, was unnecessary, and may indeed have exceeded requirements, was jammed through. That also relates to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. For those reasons, I very much welcome my hon. Friends' proposals on the 14-day period. If there is a period of reflection, we could make a change.
	I have huge respect for our Speaker. He is doing an excellent job.

Peter Soulsby: On the question of Governments using devices to avoid the will of the House, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vitally important that the House approves amendment 36, which has been proposed by the Select Committee? It is designed to make sure that the Government cannot use their prerogative as a device to prorogue the House to avoid complying with its will.

Thomas Docherty: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark and I congratulate him, as well as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), on the work of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As the Bill stands, it gives the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip vast power. It is the responsibility of Parliament to be a check on the Executive branch. I seem to be filling the Chamber, so this is of some interest. Members on both sides of the House have consistently made the argument that we have a duty to hold the Executive to account.
	I am, as I said, a massive fan of the Speaker, although I accept that I do not have much with which to compare his activities. There is a serious danger that if the Bill continues its passage without suitable alteration, we are placing our Speaker and subsequent Speakers in an extremely difficult position. I counsel the Committee to think carefully when we come to vote.

Chris Bryant: In relation to that, may I put to my hon. Friend the point that I tried to put to the Minister earlier, but which he was not able to answer? Under the provisions of the clause, if the House had carried a motion calling for an early general election by a majority of 10 or 20 votes but not by the required super-majority, would the Speaker be able to determine that that was a motion of confidence, or would the Prime Minister be able to declare that it was a matter of confidence or no confidence in his Government, thereby qualifying under the second category and in effect, therefore, manufacturing an early general election?

Thomas Docherty: As ever, my hon. Friend succinctly hits the nail on the head. The Bill is a mess because the Government did not take full advantage of the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Cathy Jamieson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, that is becoming a hallmark of the Government, particularly in relation to any constitutional change affecting Scotland?

Thomas Docherty: I thank my hon. Friend. I will not repeat my previous lecture on US constitutional history, but it worth reflecting on what happened before the 1997 general election, when Labour, the Liberal Democrats and civic society in Scotland got together for a five-year constitutional convention and teased out over that period exactly the mechanisms that would lead to a no-confidence vote. As I mentioned earlier, using the example of Scotland, if the Budget falls in the Scottish Parliament, that does not automatically trigger an early general election. What happens is that the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament has to set out that there will be a vote of no confidence later.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman spoke about his enthusiasm for the Speaker. Does he agree that we must make certain that under no circumstances should the Speaker's certificate be decided through the courts? The provision in the clause raises a serious question. The Clerk of the House was entirely right in his assessment. Furthermore, when the House votes on the amendments, it must decide that it will not under any circumstances allow the Speaker's certificate to be decided by the courts, and that the wording of the 1911 Act-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Thomas Docherty: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who has yet again identified the matter as a cross-House, cross-party, cross-views issue. It is not about tripping up the Government, but about providing clarity and ensuring that the matter is not resolved in the courts.

Peter Soulsby: On the point about providing clarity, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that amendment 37 is passed? Without that, it is not clear what would happen as a result of a vote of no confidence. Amendment 37 makes it clear what follows from that and provides that necessary clarity in what might otherwise be a very uncertain period.

Thomas Docherty: Yet again, my hon. Friend is correct. We have seen no signal from the Government-I will happily to give way to the Minister if he wishes to signal-that they will take on board the sensible, reasoned, bipartisan approach offered by the Select Committee. It is disappointing that the Minister does not wish to take that simple point on board. As the hon. Gentleman said, the issue cannot be resolved in the courts, because it would be an embarrassment to this House-a House that has stood in one form or another for 900 years-if we were forced to resort to them. We are not the Americans, I am pleased to say, and our political process should be decided through the will of the people and through their elected representatives. We should not pay high-value, slick lawyers to scurry off to the Supreme Court to try to overturn-
	 Debate interrupted  (Programme Order s , 13 September and  this day ).
	 The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again .
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions in the name of Sir George Young relating to House of Commons Commission .-(Mr Vara.) 
	 Question agreed to.

House of Commons Commission

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That Sir Stuart Bell be discharged and Mr Frank Doran be appointed as a member of the House of Commons Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.
	The motion simply replaces one member of the House of Commons Commission with another. The individual leaving the Commission, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), has been a member since 2000. He is a long-standing Member of this House who has already received the signal recognition of a knighthood from Her Majesty in 2004. I am sure the whole House will want to place on the record its appreciation of his long service to the Commission under the chairmanship of two Speakers.
	Mr Speaker, as you know, the last decade has not been an easy time for the Commission, dominated as it has been by the problems associated with Members' allowances. This is not the right time to reopen old wounds, suffice to say the Commission has sometimes been identified by the outside world as a roadblock to reform. That has not always been the case. Of course there are many other areas in which the Commission has an important influence over the House, and hon. Members will wish to thank those who serve on the Commission for their contribution to the effective working of this place.
	May I warmly welcome to the Commission, if the House agrees to the motion, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), who has been an assiduous and effective member of House Committees over the past five years as a distinguished Chair of the Administration Committee and as a member of the Finance and Service, Liaison and Accommodation and Works Committees? At a time when the Commission, quite rightly, will be considering a programme of efficiencies in the way Parliament operates, the House will be reassured by the wealth of experience and knowledge that the hon. Gentleman will bring to those discussions. I commend the motion to the House.

Helen Jones: I am very pleased to support the motion. One thing that Members learn after a few years in the House is that those who serve on the House's internal Committees do a vast amount of work, which often goes unrecognised, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) for his service to the House over a number of years.
	My hon. Friend is a long-standing Member, and prior to becoming the Member for Middlesbrough, he fought an election in the constituency of Hexham. He was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Roy Hattersley; served on the Front Bench as a spokesman on trade and industry and on Northern Ireland; and, latterly, has given sterling service to the House of Commons Commission and the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It has not been an easy time, but I put on the record my personal thanks for the amount of work he did in trying to explain to the general public exactly what Members' expenses were for and how they were dealt with. It was at times an uphill task, but he made a sterling effort.
	I also welcome, if the House agrees to the motion, the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) to the Commission. At various times he has been the Member for Aberdeen North, Aberdeen Central and Aberdeen South-without moving very far. I know from having had the privilege of serving with him on the Administration Committee that he has a devotion to the interests of this House and its Members, and that he brings to everything he does an energy and commitment, as well as an analytical mind and a real commitment to getting the best possible deal for Members.
	I am very pleased to support the motion, and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Let me take this opportunity to thank the Deputy Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for what they have said by way of tribute to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). The contribution that he has made has been enormous; it is, and certainly should be, widely appreciated across the House. My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman has served on the Commission since 21 February 2000, so his service dates back well over 10 years, and it follows that he has sat on the Commission under three successive Speakers. I know of the seriousness with which he has taken his commitment to the Commission and the passion that he feels for the interests of the House as an institution and of individual Members. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the thanks expressed to him in the course of the debate on the motion.
	Of course, I associate myself, as Speaker and as the person who chairs the Commission, with what the Deputy Leader of the House and the hon. Lady have said about the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), who has a long-standing and respected track record of commitment to this institution and to the various Committees which are so vital to its effective functioning.

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have found out this evening, I think perhaps because of the events going on outside, that somebody who is currently under investigation by the House's Standards and Privileges Committee has been awarded a parliamentary pass. Given that there are some very serious accusations and allegations, and indeed that this investigation is going on, would you perhaps talk to the Serjeant at Arms and report back to me, privately if it is not appropriate to do so in the House, to clarify whether it is appropriate for Members to have to share offices and corridors with somebody who is under investigation by one of our own Committees?

Mr Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The allocation of passes is not a matter ordinarily subject to comment or exchange on the Floor of the House. However, I am happy to acquaint myself with the detail of the issue that he has described and, if appropriate, I will revert to him. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Constitutional Law

David Mundell: I beg to move,
	That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.
	The order consolidates the rules for the conduct of the Scottish Parliament elections and ensures that the accepted recommendations from the Gould report, and a subsequent inquiry by the Scottish Affairs Committee, will apply for the May 2011 election. The draft order has been available to electoral administrators and political parties since it was laid in Parliament on 25 October-more than six months ahead of the 2011 election. Indeed, an earlier version of the draft order was circulated to electoral administrators in April and to political parties in June.
	Many Members will remember that more than 180,000 votes were lost due to rejected ballot papers in the 2007 Scottish Parliament and local government elections. That is totally unacceptable in a modern democracy, and there was widespread public outrage at the time. Indeed, I instigated a debate on the subject in the House in May 2007.
	Ron Gould was commissioned by the Electoral Commission to review the 2007 Scottish elections, and concluded that six main factors had contributed to confusion, and so to the level of rejected papers. First, there were many problems with the design of the ballot papers. Secondly, a new proportional voting system for local government elections was introduced, and voters were confused by using two electoral systems on the same day. Thirdly, there had been poor co-ordination of the publicity campaigns of the Electoral Commission, the Scottish Government and others. Fourthly, there were problems caused by electronic counting. Fifthly, there had been fragmented and late legislation on the matter and a lack of involvement in the legislative process by electoral administrators. Sixthly, there was a lack of co-ordination within the electoral community and a fragmented approach to planning.
	There is no doubt that public confidence needed to be repaired after the problems in 2007, and I believe that a successfully administered UK general election in Scotland earlier this year will have gone some way to doing that. However, I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has continued the work started by the previous Administration of implementing the Gould recommendations, and the subsequent recommendations of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, that the Government accepted at the time.

Thomas Docherty: The Minister mentioned that he raised the matter some time ago, after the last Scottish Parliament election. He might also recall that in 2004, a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the South of Scotland region argued very coherently that we should decouple elections. Does he agree with himself that that is the best way forward?

David Mundell: I regret that, at that time, the Labour party did not accept the coherence of my argument. It was, of course, the Labour-led Scottish Executive who insisted that the Scottish local government elections and the Scottish Parliament election went ahead together.

Sheila Gilmore: In the light of the Minister's comments and the criticisms that there have been of the 2007 election, why is now not the moment to rethink the fact that there will be two different types of election next year, and potentially in 2015 as well? That could be avoided entirely by the Government changing their mind.

David Mundell: As the hon. Lady will know, having contributed to other debates, that issue has been debated in the House during the consideration of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill and the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. However, I will address it later in my remarks.

Stewart Hosie: I appreciate that the Minister has changed his mind-he is perfectly entitled to do that-but he prays in aid Mr Gould. From memory, I am sure that Mr Gould's recommendation was that there should never be two elections of different sorts on the same day. The order rather seems to run counter to that core recommendation.

David Mundell: I think the hon. Gentleman's memory betrays him. If he had been paying particular attention to the helpful contribution of the Scottish Affairs Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in September, he would have seen that Mr Gould had said:
	The marking of yes or no on a referendum ballot is much easier to understand and carry out than the requirements of marking an STV ballot-
	a ballot under the single transferable vote. He also said:
	I do not believe that the same factors which led to voter confusion and the large number of rejected ballots at the last Scottish Parliamentary and Municipal elections would arise if both the Parliamentary Election and the Referendum were held on the same date.

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome, as I do, the partial acceptance of the thrust of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru's new clause 4 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which will allay the fears of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) about the 2015 election occurring on the same day as a UK general election?

David Mundell: I will, and I was pleased to read his contribution to the debate on the Bill on the day he refers to, as well as the contribution of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who also welcomed the consultation thatthe Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), is undertaking in relation to the 2015 elections and the subsequent elections, each 20 years, at which there might be a clash of dates.

Ian Murray: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that while there may be a general election and a Scottish election on the same day, the decoupling of the Scottish election and local elections, as a result of the Gould report, means that the local elections will be out of kilter and that it is not inconceivable that a general election under an alternative vote system could be held on the same day as a local council election under the single transferable vote?

David Mundell: Clearly, it is not inconceivable that such a thing might happen. However, in accordance with the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill, that scenario is unlikely. A helpful contribution that the hon. Gentleman, his Front Bench colleagues and his other hon. Friends could make is that following next year's elections to the Scottish Parliament, they could take forward a proposal to repeal STV as a voting system for local government elections in Scotland. That was a proposal that the Labour party adhered to without even asking the people of Scotland to participate in a referendum.

John Robertson: I am all for helping out the right hon. Gentleman. It is not often that he and I agree with each other, but has he talked to his coalition partners about such a change in policy?

David Mundell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a coalition in the Westminster Parliament, and the arrangement in that coalition was that there should be a referendum on AV as the United Kingdom voting system. I wish that his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament had perhaps pressed more strongly in their own coalition negotiations for a referendum to be the requirement for the introduction of STV for local government in Scotland.

Cathy Jamieson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way. If he is so keen on the Scottish Parliament making strong representations, what account is he taking of the strong recommendation from the Scottish Parliament that the referendum and the election should not take place on the same day?

David Mundell: The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I read in detail the debate that took place in the Scottish Parliament on this subject. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) was able to bring to that debate her reflections on her time in Westminster. I am sure that even she would recognise that during the course of that debate, nothing was said that had not already been said in this Parliament in the debate on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. No new argument was made by that day's coalition of Labour and Scottish National party Members.

Margaret Curran: I rise to respond to the provocation by the right hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that in that debate last week, we saw a remarkable agreement between the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish National party-that is something that we do not often get-which indicates the strength of feeling in Scotland against the Government's proposals?

David Mundell: I do not accept that at all. I have read the transcript. As the hon. Lady knows, the arguments that have been made previously in this Parliament were simply rehearsed; some were made without using the available information. I noted that she and others did not point out Ron Gould's contribution to the Scottish Affairs Committee, which I quoted earlier. He said explicitly that it would be possible for the referendum and the Scottish Parliament elections to go ahead on the same day.

Tom Greatrex: rose -

Michael Connarty: rose -

David Mundell: I will give preference to Back Benchers at this stage.

Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister. He is smirking all over his face, but does he not realise that people are watching this? He is saying that he does not care that the people of Scotland, most of whom did not vote for his party-that is why he is the lone Conservative Scotland Member-or the Scottish Parliament, which is elected by the people of Scotland, have been ignored. He is representing the contemptuous behaviour of this Government at that Dispatch Box.

David Mundell: That is a ridiculous suggestion. The Government will listen to the Scottish Parliament. Had the debate there revealed any new or different argument that was not reflected in the debate in the House, we would have considered it, but nothing new was said. Indeed, as I pointed out previously, less information was available from that debate than was available from the debate in this House. In addition, I have not heard the hon. Gentleman advocate the UK Parliament giving up its right to determine the UK voting system and dates for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

Angus MacNeil: To rewind, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) said that he did not often agree with the Minister. Will the Minister extend the olive branch further and say that he and the Labour party prefer Tory cuts to Scottish independence?

David Mundell: The people of Scotland prefer being part of the UK to Scottish independence, but we are not debating that this evening; we are debating the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010.

Thomas Docherty: There is only a handful of Lib Dems in the Chamber tonight, but where is the Secretary of State for Scotland? What important, pressing issue means that he did not want to come here to take part in this vital debate?

David Mundell: The Secretary of State had confidence that I would be in a position to make the case for the order. The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity last week to ask where the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was when the equivalent Northern Ireland order was debated, and he will likewise have a similar opportunity to ask where the Secretary of State for Wales is when the equivalent Wales order is debated next week.
	On the Gould recommendation for a six-month cut-off for changes in the law that governs the conduct of elections, we have ensured that the electoral administrators and political parties are well versed in the changes to the legislation well in advance of May 2011. Indeed, I discussed the order this week with Mary Pitcaithly, the new chair of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, and I have arranged a further meeting with her and representatives of the board on 21 December.
	The targeted 5 November working date for making the order would be challenging for whichever party won the recent general election. However, the projected date for making the order is considerably earlier than the equivalent order before the last Scottish Parliament election, which was made less than two months before the date of the poll.

Frank Roy: Will the Minister tell the House-or put the information in the Library-how many people have contacted him who support this particular proposal?

David Mundell: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010. I was not aware that there was a dispute over the order, which will regulate next year's elections. The provisions of the order have been widely consulted on-by the Electoral Commission, the Scotland Office and the Scottish Affairs Committee-and they have received support even from the Labour party in the form of the EMB representation.

Frank Roy: In short, does that mean that no one has contacted the Minister?

David Mundell: The public had confidence that the political parties in Scotland and the professionals who serve on the EMB were taking forward measures that had agreement across the political spectrum. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any specific concerns about the content of the order, which is essentially the same as the one promoted by his Government, I would be delighted to address them.
	The order applies the recommendations of Gould and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which were accepted by the previous Government, to next year's election. It is a large order, and I want to focus on the main changes since 2007.

Jim McGovern: I am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, as the Minister is aware, and I cannot remember us saying that we recommended that the referendum and the Scottish elections should take place on the same day. I am quite sure that the Committee would have been against that. Notwithstanding that, on the subject of the alternative vote, is he prepared to say how he personally might vote?

David Mundell: I am very clear that I will be voting no in the AV referendum.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I know that the Minister was tempted by that question, but perhaps we could stick to the draft order before us.

David Mundell: I give way to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell).

Fiona O'Donnell: Perhaps we can reframe the question. With 60 seconds on the doorstep to speak to a voter in your constituency, will you talk to them about the AV referendum, or will you press the case for your party in Scotland?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. It is not me who will be doing that. I would be grateful if hon. Members addressed their remarks to the Minister, not to me.

David Mundell: I will take your advice and stick to the discussion of the order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to refer hon. Members-I am sure that they will be interested in this-to a correction slip that was associated with the draft order. It makes a number of typographical corrections to the draft instrument, which will become part of the final order for printing if the draft is approved by Parliament.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister give way?

David Mundell: No, I want to make some progress. I also want to leave time for the many Members from Scotland to make their contributions to the debate.
	I want to comment on the four points about the draft order that were raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. First, article 2 of the order defines the term European parliamentary election without that term being used in the text of the order. Secondly, rule 20(3)(a) in schedule 2 includes among the minor errors that returning officers can correct in nomination papers
	errors as to a person's electoral number.
	However, unlike the nomination papers for election to this House, the nomination papers for Scottish parliamentary elections do not contain proposers' electoral numbers, thus rendering the reference unnecessary. Both those errors, while regrettable, have no effect on the operation of the order. My officials will ensure that returning officers are aware that the reference to electoral numbers can safely be ignored and that the unnecessary provisions will be removed at the first suitable opportunity to amend the order.
	Thirdly, the Committee also highlighted article 3(1), which deals with the disregarding of late alterations to the register of electors, and, fourthly, article 4(5), which deals with the effect of alterations to the register where there has been an appeal against a registration officer's decision. Those provisions have been set out in a substantially similar form in previous versions of the order since 2002, and so far as I know, they have not prejudiced voters or the effective administrations of previous elections. On reviewing those articles in light of the Committee's comments, we are of the view that there is an overlap with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 that renders those provisions unnecessary. Those points were not raised until after the draft order had been considered by the Electoral Commission and had been laid. We propose proceeding with the order in its current form, and we will revisit those provisions once we have the benefit of consulting with the Electoral Commission and other interested parties. As the equivalent provisions in previous orders have apparently not caused difficulty for voters or electoral administrators at previous elections, we do not anticipate any difficulty with those provisions as drafted.

Frank Roy: Is not the fact that there are so many mistakes that have to be rectified evidence that the order is being pushed through the House far too early?

David Mundell: I do not think that it is evidence of that at all. The hon. Gentleman will know from his long service in government that from time to time there will inevitably be small errors in such large documents, and particularly ones that have been carried over from documents and orders passed by the previous Administration.
	Moving on to the substance of the order, we have consolidated legislation on the conduct of Scottish Parliament elections so that the majority of rules governing them are now in one document, making them easier for electoral administrators and political parties to use.
	The order sets out that for the 2011 elections we will return to a manual count of ballot papers for both the Scottish Parliament constituency and regional elections.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his view on the count taking place that night? Would it be the count for one, two or three ballots? Does he foresee a problem if the counts are split, and the postal ballots are returned together in one envelope?

David Mundell: The hon. Lady makes a valid point about postal votes and how they will be dealt with, and we will speak to the Electoral Management Board about that. It is already clear that counts for the Scottish Parliament constituency and regional elections will take place ahead of any count for the alternative vote referendum.

Michael Weir: One problem with joint elections is that some papers are inevitably put in the wrong ballot box. Will not all the ballot boxes have to be opened on the night for all the elections so that the papers can be sorted out before a count can take place?

David Mundell: Indeed, the verification count will be done first, and it will be exactly the same as in 1999 and 2003, when local government elections were held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections.

Iain Stewart: I hope that I can be helpful. In the general election in May this year, my count was combined with that for another election. There was no problem at all in verifying the boxes first, and the odd stray ballot paper was easily allocated to the correct count. I hope that that example helps to allay any fears that Opposition Members may have.

David Mundell: I am sure that it will.

Michael Connarty: The Minister said that he did not envisage a time when local government elections, Scottish Government elections and even an election to this place would coincide, but if there is a sequence of five years and four years, that situation will eventually occur. Given the chaos that occurred when two elections were combined in Scotland, what provision has been made in the order to avoid such a clash, or will there be a count system lasting three or four days?

David Mundell: This a stand-alone order, which regulates the conduct of Scottish Parliament elections.

Frank Roy: We have heard that some ballot papers could go into the wrong ballot boxes. Is the Minister saying that all ballot boxes will be opened to be verified, regardless of what the election is?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced election campaigner, and he knows that in 1999 and 2003, when the Scottish Parliament and local government elections were held on the same day, that is exactly what happened. Whatever safeguards we put in place, it is not impossible for a member of the public to put the wrong ballot paper into the wrong ballot box.

Ian Murray: I want to probe the Minister on that point. If someone voting in the AV referendum has to go to a different polling station to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections, how will the Minister ensure that their votes are verified properly?

David Mundell: I am confident, as is the Electoral Management Board, that that process can be dealt with, but I will raise that specific issue of different polling places-the hon. Gentleman has raised it before-when I meet Mary Pitcaithly, and I will respond to him directly on that.

David Cairns: The Minister is praying in aid the expertise of the Electoral Management Board of Scotland. Does he recall that it comprises the very people who told us before the general election that if we proceeded with an overnight count, it would add two to three hours to the length of the count because of the need to check the identifiers on postal ballots? I said at the time that that was outrageous scaremongering to put us off having an overnight count and that they had not a shred of evidence. It turns out that I was right and they were wrong. Will the Minister deal with the Electoral Management Board with a degree caution, because up to now its advice has been spectacularly rubbish?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman is better placed than many others to know exactly how these organisations operate. He will also know that Ron Gould, on whom so many Members place such emphasis, also recommended that overnight counts should be done away with. That was one of the proposals that the hon. Gentleman's Government quite rightly rejected.

Angus MacNeil: Has the Minister ever placed much emphasis on Mr Ron Gould?

David Mundell: I have not placed the same emphasis on Mr Ron Gould as the hon. Gentleman's colleague, Miss Nicola Sturgeon, who questioned Mr Gould's competence because he had the audacity to challenge the wording Alex Salmond for First Minister on the ballot paper as it might have confused the electors. Miss Sturgeon thought that that was a ridiculous proposition.

Angus MacNeil: I simply repeat my question: has the Minister ever placed much emphasis on Mr Ron Gould?

David Mundell: Mr Ron Gould provided an authoritative report that is reflected in the order and in the subsequent Scottish Affairs Select Committee inquiry, but not everything that he said at the time was taken forward. As I said to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), the previous Government's choice of proposals not to be taken forward was quite right.

Cathy Jamieson: I want to ask the Minister for absolute clarity on this. He has cited the Scottish Affairs Select Committee a number of times. Would he accept that Ron Gould did not tell the Committee that it was a good thing to hold the two elections on the same day? He said it would be possible to do it, but he did not endorse it.

David Mundell: I think that I have quoted Mr Gould in full, and I think he is quite clear-

Tom Greatrex: Perhaps the Minister could read out the sentence before the quote from Ron Gould that he has already read out so that the House can appreciate the full point that Ron Gould was making.

David Mundell: If I had been able to complete my response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), I would have acknowledged that Mr Ron Gould's preference was for separate elections. It was also his preference that there should be no overnight counts at elections because of the opportunity for mistakes to be made. He said:
	The marking of yes or no on a referendum ballot is much easier to understand and carry out than the requirements of marking an STV ballot.
	He also said:
	I do not believe that the same factors which led to voter confusion and the large number of rejected ballots at the last Scottish Parliamentary and Municipal elections would arise if both the...Parliamentary Election and the Referendum were held on the same date.

Mark Lazarowicz: What assessment has the Minister made of the possibility of confusion arising from some people being able to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections next year but not being entitled to vote in the referendum?

David Mundell: I am confident that that issue will be addressed by the electoral authorities. There are different electoral franchises, and the electoral registers make it clear who is on which franchise. I cannot guarantee that no one will be disappointed after turning up to vote in an election and finding that they are not entitled to do so, but their status and their entitlement to vote will be determined not by their confusion but by the legal position in relation to the franchise.

Mark Lazarowicz: I understand that, but at some polling stations in my constituency, up to 10% of the electorate could be entitled to vote in the Scottish parliamentary election but not in the AV referendum. Does that not create the potential for confusion not only for those voters but for the people working in the polling stations and for every other elector as well?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman's comments will no doubt have been heard by the Electoral Commission and those who are going to produce the information material about the elections to be held next May that will be delivered to every household in Scotland.

Mike Freer: To be helpful to the Minister, I would like to point out that in London we had the mayoral elections as well as the European elections, which have very different electorates. If the Minister-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sure that the Minister is very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help, but let us stick to Scotland.

David Mundell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall continue with my summary of the order's impact.
	There will be separate ballot papers for the constituency and regional votes. Registered party names must be used on ballot papers, and the design of the ballot paper follows the principles set out in the Electoral Commission's publication Making your mark: Good practice for designing voter materials: guidance for government policy-makers. There will be a longer timetable for running the election, increased from 21 to 28 days, and to accommodate the administrative demands of increased postal voting there will be a longer period between close of nominations and the date of election from 16 days before the poll to 23 days.
	The deadline for registering to vote by post and the earliest time that postal votes can be issued is still 11 days before the poll. This longer period between the close of nominations and the date of the election helps to accommodate the increased demand to vote by post. Once all names of all candidates are known, ballot papers can be printed without any delays and sent out immediately after the deadline for registering for a postal vote has passed. For consistency, we have brought the control of donations to candidates and limits on candidates expenses into line with the principles set out in the Westminster rules.
	Apart from the consolidation of the 2008 and 2009 amendments to the 2007 order, the main new changes that have been made are as follows. Article 5(2) has been amended to reflect the provisions of sections 18A and 18B of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which set out the requirements for the review of polling districts and places. Article 36 applies to candidates at Scottish parliamentary elections-other than party list candidates-the regime for control of donations to candidates that applies to parliamentary elections by virtue of section 71A of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
	Article 43 limits the expenses that may be incurred by or on behalf of candidates-other than party list candidates-in the pre-candidacy or long campaign period before a Scottish parliamentary general election. This reflects the position that applies to parliamentary general elections by virtue of section 76ZA of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
	Article 47 incorporates the revised requirements for candidates' returns for election expenses contained in section 81 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Article 74 now reflects the requirements of section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 in relation to the information that has to appear on election publications.
	Article 88 increases the minimum period between the Dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and the day of poll from 21 to 28 days. This reflects the increase in the overall timetable for Scottish Parliament elections recommended in the Gould report. I am sure that the Opposition Front-Bench team will note the impact of the royal wedding bank holiday on the date of Dissolution of the Scottish Parliament ahead of the Scottish elections. This reflects the increase in the overall timetable for Scottish Parliament elections that was recommended in the Gould report.
	Paragraphs 1(3) and 2(5) of schedule 1 have been amended to allow electoral registration officers to supply returning officers and other persons or organisations with a consolidated version of the register that takes account of any alterations, as opposed to having to provide a copy of the original register and individual copies of the notices of alteration.
	Rule 1 of schedule 2 provides the timetable for elections. There is no longer to be a separate timetable for by-elections. Indeed, it may be of interest to hon. Ladies who are still members of the Scottish Parliament that the date has passed for which a Scottish Parliament by-election can be held ahead of the Scottish Parliament elections.
	Rule 20 of schedule 2 allows for minor errors on nomination forms to be corrected by either the constituency or regional returning officer. Rule 48(3)(b) of schedule 2 has been amended to allow grandparents or grandchildren to assist a person with disabilities to vote at a polling station. Rule 49(7) of schedule 2 now requires the voter to sign the tendered votes list, which is in line with rule 40(3) of the parliamentary election rules. Rules 69 to 71 of schedule 2 and paragraph 30 of Schedule 4 have been amended to reflect the transfer of responsibility for the storage of election documents from sheriff clerks to constituency returning officers.
	Rules 72 to 78 of schedule 2 have been updated to reflect the provisions relating to the death of a candidate during the election period which were introduced by section 24 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006. Rule 79 of schedule 2 has been amended to specify what information on Members should be entered in the Scottish Parliament's returns book, and to restrict the availability of the returns book for public inspection to the life of the Parliament or to such later time as the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament may direct.
	Paragraph 10 of schedule 3 has been amended to include a requirement for electoral registration officers to inform a proxy that they have been appointed, and to inform that proxy of the length of their appointment. Paragraphs 16 to 21 of schedule 3 provide for limited access to, and the supply of copies of, absent voting records-such as the postal voters list-for candidates, political parties and elected representatives, as well as public inspection of those records under supervision. That reflects the United Kingdom position under the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001.
	Paragraph 5(5) of schedule 4 has been amended to allow the returning officer to determine which of a candidate's proposed agents are to be appointed for the purpose of attending the postal voting proceedings if the list submitted by the candidate contains more names than have been authorised by the returning officer.
	I think the House will acknowledge that we have already had a full discussion of the impact of holding AV referendum on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections. Opposition Members may wish to make further contributions in the time that remains. However, given that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) raised the issue of the clash of elections in 2015, which arises in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, I want to say a bit more about that.
	The Government recognise the concerns raised about the coincidence of elections, and we are consulting the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the parties in Scotland. Specifically, we are consulting on whether provision should be made in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill enabling the Scottish Parliament to resolve, with a two-thirds majority, to delay its election by up to six months to avoid a coincidence with the elections to the House of Commons. That would supplement the existing powers in the Scotland Act which allow the Parliament to dissolve early.

Ian Murray: I am pleased that discussions are taking place with various bodies about the elections in 2015. Is the Minister now conceding that it would be unwise for two elections to be held on the same day?

David Mundell: I am recognising that the coincidence of the Scottish Parliament and Westminster elections in 2015 is a significant and legitimate concern. That is why we are consulting on it.
	The proposal for the new power would be consistent with existing provisions in the Scotland Act on extraordinary elections. It would also allow a decision to be taken should it be decided at a later date that elections should not be combined.
	The forthcoming Scotland Bill will signal the Government's commitment to implementing the proposals of the Calman commission on Scottish devolution, including the recommendation to devolve responsibility for the administration of elections. The Bill will be introduced in the House soon, but clearly it will not have received Royal Assent by May 2011.
	Finally, I should point out that not all the Gould recommendations were for the UK Government to act on; some were for the Scottish Government, the Electoral Commission or electoral administrators to implement.
	I hope that the House has been reassured that the draft order will take the necessary steps to ensure successful elections to the Scottish Parliament in May 2011, and I commend it to the House.

Tom Greatrex: It is always a pleasure to follow the Minister. As he explained, this order has been in preparation for a considerable time and it forms the final part, I think, of the Government's response to the report undertaken by Ron Gould on behalf of the Electoral Commission following the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. The length of the measure, at more than 200 pages, is explained by the fact that it is a consolidating measure, and much of its content is uncontroversial and, I am sure, will assist the various interested parties required to implement its provisions. However, we have concerns about the manner and timing of the measure's introduction to the House and about the fact that it is being manipulated to form part of a wider legislative change that has been marked by excessive speed, political opportunism and a concerning scarcity of competence.
	The measure-all 200-plus pages of it-should have been in place prior to the six month pre-election period as specifically recommended by the Gould report. I noted that the Minister in his opening remarks danced around the Gould recommendation about when it should have been in place by referring to consultation, but as the Minister well knows, the recommendation was that it should be in place, rather than it should have been published or made available to various individual electoral administrators. I also recall that the Minister was fulsome in his welcome for that recommendation in a previous life.
	We are considering this measure in the final week of November, despite the fact that the Government have had since mid-May to take it forward and, as the Minister said, much of the work on the measure was in train under the previous Government. The Minister failed to explain satisfactorily why that is the case, and perhaps I can venture to suggest that it may be something to do with the yellow rush of spurious and ill-conceived constitutional change the Government are rushing through before their implications are widely realised. It is therefore little wonder that solid and necessary measures such as this one do not get priority treatment, even though Government Members have been aware for more than three years that it should be in place six months ahead of the Scottish Parliament elections.
	In between reading this order in detail this morning, I read some of today's newspapers and learned that in what will no doubt come to be considered our esteemed Deputy Prime Minister's seminal Hugo Young lecture yesterday, he declared in his typically erudite, modest and understated way that he is the intellectual driving force of the new progressivism, an idea that will, perhaps, eventually catch on.
	New progressivism is, it seems, a new name for the old expediency of rushing through constitutional change without draft Bills, without pre-legislative scrutiny and without consultation with affected bodies, all of which are also features of what is no doubt the old progressivism of which the Deputy Prime Minister and his small band of followers were supporters prior to the general election.

Alan Reid: I the hon. Gentleman's attention to what happened when his party was in power. At the very last minute, just two months before the election, we had an order like this one that totally reorganised the ballot paper so that there were two columns on it. A complete mess was made of things, and the Labour Government were responsible for the biggest election fiasco ever in the history of this country.

Tom Greatrex: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his excitable intervention. I am sure that he, in common with many other Liberal Democrat Members, was at the last election and previously a great fan of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, although I note that he now seems to be less enamoured.
	Although we are considering this statutory instrument for the first time this evening, it is referred to, and already amended by, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which has completed its Commons stages and is now being scrutinised in another place. The Bill-which, as I have said, refers to this statutory instrument-will permit the Scottish Parliament elections to coincide with the date of a referendum on AV, something which just about everybody other than members of the Government think is a bad idea. As the Minister noted in the latter part of his remarks, even the esteemed Ron Gould expressed his doubts on that matter. So the Commons has considered the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill prior to the statutory instrument to which it refers having been approved by the House of Commons. That is not only completely illogical, but it is contrary to standard parliamentary practice and represents a worrying precedent. The Minister was careful not to seek to explain it, perhaps because he is embarrassed at such a blatant political fix. Perhaps he will explain it in more detail in his later remarks. I am not an experienced Member or an expert on parliamentary process by any manner of means, but if this is a measure of the tactics used, it leads me to wonder how we are expected to undertake our role in scrutinising the Executive properly.
	The Executive have made much of their respect agenda towards the devolved Administrations and Assemblies, so why have the Minister and his Secretary of State, who is absent tonight, singularly failed to consult the Scottish Executive on the clash of dates? The Scottish Parliament's view was clearly expressed last week when, by 89 votes to 30, it said that the elections to which this statutory instrument relates and the referendum should not be combined. It seems that the respect agenda has been superseded by the old and regressive new progressivism.
	I ask the Minister to address a number of questions about the content of this measure. The Gould report recommended the appointment of a chief returning officer. Why is that recommendation not being followed through? Surely one of the main problems identified by Gould was the inconsistency in interpreting the guidelines. I am sure the Minister will recall that as a result of the number of list candidates who applied to stand in the 2007 elections, the returning officers in both Glasgow and Edinburgh removed a line of instruction to the voter at the top of the ballot paper but failed to consult others prior to making that decision.
	Why are the UK government not considering, as the current proposal from the Scottish Government does, putting the Interim Electoral Management Board on a statutory footing, despite the fact that it is now the main source of professional advice and co-ordination for all elections held in Scotland? Do the UK Government believe that there should be two separate electoral management boards in Scotland or that it makes sense for such a board to be formed but not deal with either UK or EU elections? What arrangements will the UK Government establish to co-ordinate returning officers and chief returning officers for the 2011 elections, and for subsequent UK and EU elections?
	If the Scottish Government proceed to make the IEMB a statutory body for local and Scottish Parliament elections, what do the UK Government envisage will be the relationship with it if other elections are held on same date and if the Minister's much-vaunted consultation on what happens in 2015 does not end up in any result? Who will be responsible for what? How are we going to achieve consistency in rulings and implementation of arrangements?
	Why is this statutory instrument following the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, rather than preceding it? Surely this statutory instrument should have been presented to Parliament before the Bill was introduced-there has been sufficient time for that following the general election. Will the Minister tell us on how many occasions a Bill that includes reference to a particular statutory instrument has completed its stages in the Commons prior to that statutory instrument being approved by this House? Does he not agree that this sets a dangerous precedent and attacks the ability of this House to scrutinise legislation properly?
	Why is this statutory instrument coming to the House less than six months prior to the Scottish Parliament elections, despite the Minister's acknowledged acceptance of the Gould recommendation that the rules should now be not merely published, but in place? Why are the coalition Government continuing with a joint ballot on 5 May 2011 when evidence and expert feedback suggests that the amount of spoiled papers will be higher? Surely that mirrors the problem identified in 2007 that multiple ballot forms can confuse, particularly those who are frail, those who have learning difficulties or those for whom English is not their first language. What testing has occurred and what methodology did it use? If the joint ballot is to be held on 5 May 2011, can the Minister clarify how the ballot papers will be set out? Will they be on separate ballots? If so, will they be on separate coloured ballots that have been tested and are acceptable for people with eye conditions? What testing will take place? Have all the proposed ballot papers been tested by the Electoral Commission? Have any discussions taken place with the Interim Electoral Management Board in Scotland about the dual poll? What concerns did it raise?
	This statutory instrument rectifies the inadvertent problems in the previous election rules that prevented a candidate from being able to run as a candidate with a descriptor for two registered parties and use a registered symbol of one of those parties. I declare an interest as a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. Perhaps in future elections those on the Government Benches may stand as combined party candidates. I therefore ask the Minister when that situation will be rectified for future UK elections as it has been for the Scottish Parliament elections.
	On prisoner voting rights, will the Minister clarify when the Government intend to amend the franchise and whether that will occur before the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections? In their explanatory notes, the Government contend that they do not need to qualify their statement on the Human Rights Act 1998 because they do not consider the Scottish Parliament to be a legislature for the purposes of article 3 of the first protocol. Specifically, they mention the Toner case in regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly, in which a ruling has been made. Does the Minister not accept that the legislative competence and power of the Scottish Parliament is considerably greater than those of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and accordingly will he clarify further why the Government have now determined that the ruling will apply in Scotland? Why have the Government not adopted a precautionary approach and what estimate have they made that their interpretation will be subject to legal challenge?

Thomas Docherty: Given that the Scottish National party failed to consult this place or the other parties when it took away the tax varying powers, does my hon. Friend share my concern that Scotland perhaps does not have a proper Parliament any more thanks to the SNP?

Tom Greatrex: I am grateful as ever for the erudite intervention of my hon. Friend. Given that other matters are being discussed today in Edinburgh, perhaps we will all be able to reflect on those discussions in the fullness of time.
	If reforms in prisoner voting rights are not implemented before May 2011, does the Minister consider that there will be further legal challenges on the alternative vote referendum and, if so, are the Government qualifying their Human Rights Act statement as regards that poll?
	There are errors in schedule 2 of the printed draft order. Parts 2 to 7 are, from page 64 onwards, erroneously referred to as parts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. As the Minister has mentioned, five additional drafting errors were noted by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. He has clarified those errors. Will he tell us what steps will be taken to provide corrected information and the final order to those who will have to implement it?
	On schedule 5, in what circumstances does he envisage a combination of Scottish Parliament and local government polls? Will he consider, given the Gould recommendation, that that is likely to occur only when there is a local government by-election? What provisions will he put in place should a council by-election take place on the same day as a Scottish Parliament election and an AV referendum? I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those specific questions.

Angus MacNeil: I have been slightly distracted by a decoy from the Government Whips, but we in the Hebrides can forgive such decoy activities from Orkney and Shetland.
	I am no lawyer-perhaps a reasonable crofter, but certainly no lawyer-but as it stands we feel that there are serious issues with the order. As the SNP's lawyer put it:
	This order is a perfect example, of how NOT to write legislation.
	We have found no fewer than 27 individual problems with the drafting of the order. Some have been reported to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has accepted four of them. I shall not, for the benefit of the House, go through all 27 today. However, I shall give an overview of what has happened over the past months in relation to our Scottish elections.
	Let me start by reiterating the fact that our Scottish elections should not be run from Westminster. Our elections are a unique part of Scottish democracy and, frankly, the way in which the legislation for our elections has been treated is nothing less than shocking. It gives me some delight-and perhaps a bit of schadenfreude-to think that the referendum that was going to eclipse our elections has now been eclipsed by a certain royal wedding. We wish them good luck and thank them for the bank holiday that is coming our way.

David Mundell: May I seek the hon. Gentleman's clarification on which referendum he means? I had understood that there was to be a referendum in Scotland, instigated by the Scottish Government, that was to eclipse all other electoral activity in Scotland.

Angus MacNeil: The SNP would have treated the Scottish people with more courtesy than the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, who have treated them with disdain by parking their tanks on the lawn of the date of the Scottish election-the first Thursday in May in 2011, a date that had been scheduled for many years.
	This Government have ignored the strongest point of the Gould report into the 2007 Scottish election, which stated that, among other things, there should be a six-month period between the statutory instrument coming into force and polling day. We are already within the six-month period for the Scottish parliamentary elections and are thereby in violation of the strongest recommendation in the report. Why do we need six months? The report states:
	Throughout this report, we have pointed to problems that have arisen because the passing of electoral legislation has been unduly delayed. To avoid these problems, we would recommend a practice found in the electoral laws in other countries. These laws provide that electoral legislation cannot be applied to any election held within six months of the new provision coming into force.
	Even without the report, that is surely common sense. We have international practice and the Government are indeed fond of citing international examples. It is beyond me how they can fail to note that other countries use the six-month electoral law. When electoral legislation is rushed through at the last minute it is the voters who suffer.
	I want to discuss the new ballot papers, which do not adhere to Electoral Commission recommendations and have not been properly user-tested. Forms J and K on the order do not exactly correspond to the form on page 20 of the Electoral Commission report, Making your mark, which was directed at Government policy makers. The Scotland Office says that it has used that information in drafting the forms in the statutory instrument, but the form on page 20 of the report is plainly far superior to what the Government have offered. Specifically, I am concerned about the spacing of the lines separating candidates and parties, which do not extend over the page. Also, the spacing of the words and emblems are not closely matched to the box. Those points might seem trivial, but if only 5% of voters make an error we have a serious problem, as we discovered in 2007.
	The average voter is, perhaps, too busy with shopping, picking up the kids and the stresses of work to make absolutely sure that they are complying with what the Government intended. People are not going to have rulers ready to discern which line applies to which candidate and party. Surely, it is the job of this place, for now, to make such things as easy as possible for the voter and to remove potential bear traps.

Michael Weir: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the lining up of candidates and party affiliations. Does he recall that in the disputed American election of 2004, with the famous hanging chads in Florida, one problem was the design of the ballot paper on which the candidates did not line up with the designations?

Angus MacNeil: To be absolutely honest, I do not recall that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. Presumably, when those ballot papers were being designed someone thought that would not be an issue but lo and behold it did become an issue in Florida and other areas.
	The problems I am highlighting could have been avoided if the Government had followed the Electoral Commission's suggestion of user-testing the new ballot papers. That has already been mentioned. As far as we can tell, the Government have not made any attempt to get the new ballot paper checked. Even the ballot paper in the ill-fated 2007 election was user-tested by at least 100 people. That number was small, given what happened, but better than none and better than what is happening now.
	Without independent evaluation, we cannot be sure that the ballot paper will be easily understood and will not lead to confusion. In addition, we will, or could, have an AV referendum on the same day using a slightly different ballot paper and a different design altogether. As none of the ballot papers have been tested independently, we cannot assume that the vast majority-towards 100%-of people will understand these ballot papers, just as I cannot assume that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) would understand me if I started speaking in Gaelic. It might make sense to me, but countless others, including the hon. Gentleman, might be left in the dark.
	This is not the first time that the Scotland Office will have heard our concerns.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman asks me to translate-he probably assumes that I am speaking in Gaelic already.  [ Interruption. ] It is time he learned some.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This is not a private conversation between the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and the Whip. If the hon. Gentleman addressed the Chamber it would help us all.

Angus MacNeil: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman tempts me unduly.
	Since May, we have had difficulty in getting copies of the order. When we did so in June, they were lacking in detail, specifically the previously mentioned ballot forms. We were told we would receive a near final copy of the draft order by the end of June, but we saw nothing until the order was laid before the House on 25 October-the third day of the Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
	Of the 27 issues we have with the drafting of the order, I shall, as I said, highlight but a few. The heading for part 2 seems to have been lifted from the Representation of the People Act 1983. It is one thing to lift a title when it has something to do with the order, but when-as in this case-the title has little or nothing at all to do with our elections, copying it from the Act misses the fact that the order contains no provisions on the franchise. There is no separate Scottish parliamentary election franchise; the franchise for voting at an election to the Scottish Parliament is in section 11 of the Scotland Act 1998. Nothing in the order can add anything to those provisions, or take anything away from them, given the extent of the order-making power under section 12(1) of the Scotland Act. The franchise is contained in primary legislation enacted by the UK Parliament rather than in an Act of the Scottish Parliament or other secondary legislation.
	The heading should reflect the actual content of part 2, not the legislation it happens to have been adapted from. In this context, the Oxford English Dictionary defines franchise as:
	The right or privilege of voting in public elections-especially for members of a legislative body.
	Provisions on the electoral register relate simply to the mechanisms for the exercise of the right, not to the right itself.
	Under article 43, the translation of the new limits for Westminster elections could lead to unforeseen campaign finance consequences. We note that if the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill becomes law, there will be a combined ballot in May 2011. As highlighted by the Channel 4 News and Bureau of Investigative Journalism inquiry into certain expenses incurred in the 2010 general election, the attribution of expenses between different electoral events can be subject to a number of interpretations. That opens up the possibility that the expenses limit attributable to the referendum could be used to circumvent the limitation of election expenses at both candidate and party level-perhaps a loophole.
	It has been noted that in the event of a combined election, with the main political parties in Scotland all making the necessary declarations to become permitted participants, the Conservative party may be able to spend £5 million, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties £4 million and the SNP £500,000. It is entirely possible that the PVSC Bill will not have received Royal Assent before 5 January 2011, which marks the start of the regulated periods for the Scottish Parliament elections. If that is the case, referendum expenditure at that point will be unregulated, as the referendum period under the Bill commences on Royal Assent. As I have said, the SI could create a massive financial loophole for campaign spending.
	In article 88 of the draft order, it seems that the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body was not consulted regarding the date of Dissolution. In 2002, when changes being made to the 1999 order reduced the Dissolution period for the Scottish Parliament from 25 days to 21 days, that process was subject to consultation and, indeed, discussion. We are having trouble finding any evidence of the same happening with this draft order. As we all know, article 88 changes the number of working days in the Parliament. It is my hope that someone from the Scotland Office was in close contact with the Scottish Government or Parliament. Can we have some confirmation that agreement was sought from the Scottish Parliament or the Government for the change?
	The entire process has been devoid of political party consultation, which, believe it or not, is important. Our parties, across the House and the devolved legislatures, have the experience and knowledge to help draft election legislation. Would the Government not consult the construction industry on legislation related to it? Why then have we had such a hard time in getting information and consultation on this particular order?
	One might wonder why we need to be consulted. Surely the lack of political parties in the elections process would be welcome. However, the Gould report stated:
	Electoral legislation-especially in a fragmented legislative environment-is nuanced and dense. Understanding is usually built up through years of experience 'on the ground', whether as an administrator or a party activist. This understanding is difficult to develop on a purely intellectual level, which is why practitioner input is vital.
	The Government have rushed through Parliament all aspects of the legislation relating to elections in Scotland. This has lead to the drastic addition of critical amendments on the hoof. We have not been able to study these issues properly, and we can expect that more amendments will be pushed through the House of Lords before the process is over.

Alan Reid: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech and I am trying to work out what he finds wrong with the order. All I can deduce is that a line on the ballot paper is not long enough and that he finds the heading of part 2 incorrect. Is there anything of substance that he finds wrong with the order?

Angus MacNeil: Usually I welcome interventions. I am reluctant to slam the hon. Gentleman, but if he had listened to what I was saying 30 seconds ago, he would know that I was speaking about the lack of consultation of those who had developed knowledge and practice in elections. That lack of consultation has led to weaknesses in the order.
	Even though the draft order was laid before the House on 25 October, it has not become law. Even though the Electoral Commission considers that the combination polls are on track, it still says that
	delivering well-run polls on 5 May will be a major challenge.
	Yes, we received a copy of the draft order ahead of time, but it was lacking in the things that were most important and was, therefore, only partly helpful.
	Finally, we understand that this is an affirmative order and cannot be amended on the Floor of the House. That is indeed a problem for if we could, I would be more than happy to amend the instrument and vote for it, but since it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation, I am afraid I might have to leave it.

Cathy Jamieson: I shall be brief as I know that some of my colleagues hope to get into the debate. At the start of it, we could have been forgiven for wondering why a document that should be an uncontroversial order dealing with the rules relating to elections caused so much grief and so many exchanges across the Chamber. Amid the political knockabout that went on, there is a serious point about the manner, the timing and the way in which the order has been brought before the House, which causes serious concerns about parliamentary process.

Alan Reid: The hon. Lady has obviously studied the order. Can she tell us what changes to the order she would like to see?

Cathy Jamieson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress. It is important to recognise that the order contained some drafting deficiencies, which the Minister was good enough to highlight. The reason that there has been so much discussion of the order tonight is that there is unfinished business from some of the other debates that have gone on, particularly about the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
	Government Members may shake their heads, but the issue concerns not only the Members present this evening. It is a serious matter for the Members of the Scottish Parliament who voted they way they did because they did not believe that it was right to have the referendum and the Scottish Parliament election on the same day. That was made very clear by the Scottish Parliament's Local Government and Communities Committee, including, as I understand it, by a member of the same party as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) who also believes that it was the wrong decision.
	The problem is that such an approach has left the people of Scotland, particularly parliamentarians in Scotland, feeling that no matter what they say or do, their votes and views do not count in this place. That is a particular problem because the Government initially set out to talk about and highlight the new respect agenda. That simply has not come to pass, and it has been highlighted once again by the delay in bringing what should have been a relatively uncontroversial order to this Chamber for debate. Perhaps an expert on the constitution and the workings of the House will tell me I am wrong, but I find it odd that we should have discussed the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which refers to the order, in advance of the order itself. That seems highly unusual, and I hope that the Minister refers to that in his winding-up comments.
	People keep raising concerns about holding the referendum and Scottish Parliament elections on the same day, because we have bitter experience of things going badly wrong. We understand that mistakes were made last time, and we want to ensure that they do not happen again, so I find it difficult to listen to the Minister selectively quoting Mr Ron Gould. If we are serious about ensuring that we do not repeat the same problems, we should take account of everything that the Gould report says.
	On several occasions I have pressed Ministers to tell me whether they will listen to the views of the Scottish Parliament. I have heard warm words but seen absolutely no action.

Margaret Curran: The Minister referred to last week's debate in the Scottish Parliament and my participation in it. I said that no plausible explanation had been given as to why the Scottish Parliament had not been consulted on the process. Given that the Parliament passed the relevant motion by a two-thirds majority and the Minister knows the importance of its view, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should recognise its expressed will?

Cathy Jamieson: I absolutely understand my hon. Friend's position, and she is absolutely right. I hope that in closing I can give the Minister one final opportunity to recognise the will of the Scottish Parliament and state that he not only hears it, but will do something about it.

Thomas Docherty: I have taken part in all our constitutional debates on the Floor of the House, and I yet again welcome to his place the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has taken a very keen interest in these matters. I am glad that he takes an interest in what, in theory, should be a Scottish-only affair, but it is disappointing that, yet again, the Deputy Prime Minister has not deigned to grace us with his presence. Nor, indeed, has the Secretary of State for Scotland, so I can only wish him a speedy recovery, because I cannot think of any other reason why he would not want to take part in this debate.
	When the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responds, I trust he will confirm that, unlike the Deputy Prime Minister, he has actually read the Gould report. Hon. Members will recall that, when the Deputy Prime Minister did on one occasion deign to turn up, he was forced to admit- [Interruption.] The Minister might have read the report of the report, as the Deputy Prime Minister admitted to doing. The Gould report raises some serious concerns, but I do not wish to labour the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) made so eloquently.

Angus MacNeil: My memory could be defective, but I somehow feel that in a previous life, in another role in this House, the Minister used to emphasise and put great weight on parts, if not all, of the Gould report. Perhaps he will clarify that later on.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and, like him, look forward to the Minister emphasising which parts of the report he agreed with then and still agrees with today. I am sure that, unlike certain Liberal Democrats, he is sticking to his guns on these matters.
	There are some genuine and serious concerns about the logistics of combining the polls, and having had a chance to work through the rather weighty 260 pages of the order, I fear that some of those concerns have not been resolved adequately. In the brief time that I have, I shall try to touch on a couple of them. I should add that my local Liberal Democrat MSP-or rather my current one until May, when he loses-does not even agree with what the Minister is doing.
	The first of the three issues that I should like to cover is postal votes. If you have had a chance to look at the report, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall the problems that we had in 2007 with local authorities issuing postal votes on time. Of course, the point of a postal vote is that it is for somebody who cannot make it along on the day. Some people did not get their postal votes landing on their doormats until the Monday or Tuesday of the week of the election. I am sure that the House will agree that that is most unsatisfactory. I would be grateful if the Minister would further outline exactly what he proposes to do to ensure that that situation does not happen again given that, on this occasion, effectively double the number of forms will be sent out.
	The second issue relates to polling stations and counting stations. The returning officers have made clear in their submissions to the Scottish Affairs Committee, and elsewhere, their concerns that counting stations will not be big enough to take all the ballot boxes that are required and to do all the sorting and sifting that will be necessary. Indeed, additional recompense will be required because they will need to keep the counting stations open not only through the Thursday night but throughout Friday and perhaps into Saturday. In one or two locations, owing to well-observed religious views, the count for the referendum might take place the following week. There is also the serious issue of how Royal Mail will be able to cope, because not only the constituency lists but the material for the yes and no campaigns in the referendums will be going out.
	Finally, despite the warm words from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), we still have not received absolute clarification of how much money Scottish local authorities will receive to help to pay for all the issues that I have outlined. Perhaps he could lean over and explain to the Under-Secretary what those figures are. It is disappointing that having eventually dragged this report out of the Government, they did not follow normal practice and let us scrutinise it before we debated the final stages of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Under-Secretary can outline exactly how much compensation will be given to Scottish local authorities to run this ill-conceived referendum on the same day as the Scottish elections.

Margaret Curran: There are many issues of substance in the order. We want to be very co-operative with the Government, as has happened in our relationships with Governments in the past when we have had to ensure that we had successful Scottish Parliament elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said, the problem is that we have got off to a very bad start, particularly regarding the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, the problems with which have already been indicated.
	I have to tell the Government that the determined view in Scotland is that the Government are showing something of a pattern in their attitude to the Scottish parliamentary elections, and perhaps in their attitude to Scotland. I am disappointed about that given that I know the Under-Secretary very well and have, I think, worked with him reasonably constructively in the past. I am disappointed by his attitude to last week's Scottish Parliament debate, of which he seemed so disdainful and dismissive. That was not his attitude in the past, and it is beginning to be symptomatic of this Government's attitude to the Scottish Parliament, where substantial points were raised in that debate.
	The core of this argument is that, as been acknowledged, an enormous mistake was made in the elections of 2007. Essentially, people believed that the arrangements for the elections were devised to suit the politicians, not the voters. I say in all sincerity that we are in danger of making that mistake again. This is illustrative of the attitude to the Scottish Parliament debate, where we were trying to point out that there are issues of substance. The best way to resolve them is through dialogue and constructive engagement. The fact that the coalition Government made this decision without even cursory reference to the Scottish Parliament or the elected Government of Scotland raises serious and continuing questions about their approach. That undermines our confidence in the Government's ability to resolve the problem.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Curran: I am very short of time, so I do not think I can.

Angus MacNeil: Aye, you can.

Margaret Curran: Very briefly-I know what you're like.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful. Given the problem that the hon. Lady is highlighting, does she not feel that that power should reside with the Scottish Parliament, not here?

Margaret Curran: I know that that has been under discussion for some time, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows our views on that. However, I wish to stick to the core argument.
	I make a plea to the Government, who have a real opportunity. If they are prepared to engage with key parties and listen to the different perspectives, perhaps we can come to a shared resolution. Their intransigent attitude of asserting rather than engaging in argument is leading to enormous difficulty, which will be confirmed next year. I plead with the Minister to try to resolve the problem rather than just weep at it when it occurs, and I ask the coalition Government finally to engage with the Scottish Parliament on matters as important as the elections to that Parliament.

David Mundell: I will respond to as many points related to the order as I can in the time available to me, but if some matters are not covered, I undertake to write to the Members in question. To allow the fullest possible debate, I thought it right to take a large number of interventions because the order and the other matters raised are important to people in Scotland.
	I accept the sincerity of the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), but I do not accept that it shows disdain for the Scottish Parliament not to agree with a conclusion that it reaches in a debate. I respect its right to have that debate, although frankly I am extremely surprised that it took three months for it to take place if the issue was of such a pressing nature for the public in Scotland. Some valuable contributions were made in it, but they reflected contributions made when the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was debated in this House. Nothing new was added to lead the Government to any view other than that we should hold the referendum on 5 May. Of course, we commit to working with the Scottish Government, Scottish political parties and the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the election and referendum on that day are a success.

Margaret Curran: May I ask why the Minister did not consult the Scottish Parliament about the proposal? Does he regard that as a breach of the respect agenda?

David Mundell: I do not accept that it was a breach of the mutual respect agenda that this Government are pursuing. It was right that a provision of such significance be brought to this House first. As soon as it had been announced to this House, the Scotland Office was in contact with the Scottish Government and parties in the Scottish Parliament, and it has maintained that dialogue.
	As I indicated earlier, we accept that the coincidence of the 2015 elections is a significant issue to consider. That is why, earlier in the summer, the Secretary of State wrote to parties and authorities in Scotland to acknowledge that fact, and why the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), indicated that there would be a consultation on the matter. I look forward to hearing the views of the Scottish Labour party and the other parties in the Scottish Parliament as part of that consultation. We are committed to our agenda of mutual respect, and that is highlighted no better than in the Bill that we will shortly bring forward to enhance greatly the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made a number of points about the cost of the count. We have been quite clear that the additional costs of the referendum will be met by the UK Government.
	We are short of time. The regulations that are contained in the order will allow additional time for consideration of postal voting issues. I have confidence that the Royal Mail in Scotland will be able to cope with all the issues that have been raised.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) raised a number of points, but I share the view of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) that it was not clear where they were heading. I do not know whether we were being criticised for being too rushed or for being too slow.
	The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) showed that he had learned shamelessness from the master, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), in suggesting that his party would have brought forward this order quicker. It is not the case; we have kept to as tight a timetable as we can and we have kept the rationale of the previous Government. Many of the issues he raised related to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which is currently being dealt with in another place, and, to an extent, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill.
	The other evening I heard his other mentor, the noble Lord McAvoy, making a passionate speech, highlighting many of the same issues. He raised some specific points, which I will respond to in writing.
	 Question put.
	 The Deputy Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 1 December (Standing Order No.41A).

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Amendment of Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.- (Philip Dunne.)
	 Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland grand Committee

Ordered,
	That-
	(1) the matter of the implications for Northern Ireland of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 7 December at 4.30 pm; and
	(3) at that sitting-
	(a) the Committee shall consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the matter referred to the Committee- (Philip Dunne)

Bookmakers and Planning (Haringey)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -( Philip Dunne.)

David Lammy: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on planning and betting shops in Haringey and somewhat relieved that it has coincided with the interval in the Tottenham-Werder Bremen match in which Tottenham is up 2-0, so I will speak very quickly.
	Across the country, we are seeing some of the institutions that form the fabric of our local communities being taken over by big business. Pubs, community centres, independent stores and post offices are being replaced by supermarket chain stores, chain bookmakers and pay-day loan shops. The fluidity of the use classes of our high street shops currently fails to provide adequate protection for iconic premises and essential amenities, and the people of my constituency and of Haringey as a whole are paying the price.
	Cultural landmarks that have been anchored in our communities for decades are evaporating and betting shops are opening in their place. In the past three years, Green lanes-the road that bisects the borough-has seen no fewer than three banks and one post office converted into bookmakers.
	The latest application for a betting shop on Tottenham High road-the 10th along that stretch that stretch of road-would mean a betting shop replacing one of the most famous independent music shops in the north London area. This debate is about Haringey, but it is worth mentioning that the old Hackney town hall, which was built in 1802, is now a bookmaker's, as is the iconic Railway Tavern opposite. That is not to say that I am against gambling-far from it. Bookmakers certainly have a place on our high street, but there is such a thing as having too many.
	The consequences are not simply a change in lifestyle and a longer walk to the bank or the post office, although those need to be taken into account, but a vastly different neighbourhood. In my view, it sends the wrong message in the midst of an economic downturn if the people who are in need of financial advice find a virtual roulette wheel where they once could have received advice on saving. My constituency has 39 bookmakers but no book shops. What message does that send about what we value in our community?
	Community services and iconic businesses need protection if we are to achieve vibrant and sustainable high streets. I fully support the Protection of Local Services (Planning) Bill, which is promoted by the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), because it would give councils precisely that power. In Haringey, the failure of planning laws has meant more than simply the loss of essential local amenities; planning laws have allowed betting shops to cluster and dominate an entire commercial area. That undermines the sustainability of high streets and limits the diversity of footfall.

Stephen Gilbert: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. His diagnosis of the problem is absolutely right, but as a Minister in the Department that implemented the Gambling Act 2005, does he feel remorse that he lacked the foresight to see this situation coming down the road, and that he rejected representations made in this House on precisely that issue?

David Lammy: I am coming to that, but I am happy to acknowledge that there were mistakes in the 2005 Act. When the hon. Gentleman reads the  Hansard reports of debates on that measure, he will find virtually no discussion of bookmakers. As he might remember, although he was not a Member of the House at the time, the debate was predominantly about super-casinos. That is precisely why the problems I am talking about came in through the back door. That situation undermines the sustainability of high streets, limits the diversity of footfall and acts as a deterrent to any prospective business that is looking to invest in our area. We sacrifice the diversity and vibrancy of a high street by allowing an increasing number of shop fronts to be occupied by the same, narrow-appealing trade.
	Outside Wood Green tube station, there are five shops within 150 metres, three with the same operator. Along Green lanes there are nine gambling premises within 300 metres. As I said, this debate is about Haringey, but the problem is broader. There are 10 betting shops within 300 meters of Ealing Broadway tube station. In Chinatown in Westminster, not far from here, there are more than 60 gambling premises within a five-minute walk of the pagoda. That is unacceptable. I joined the Chinese community just two weeks ago to campaign against the law that has allowed that to happen. Chinese owners of premises and shopkeepers are being driven out of the area. Even in Guildford, which is very different to my constituency, six gaming centres have packed into the same warehouse building. Clustering is so evident that even the industry lobby group, the Association of British Bookmakers, conceded in a recent parliamentary briefing that
	in areas of high population density, shops have clustered around particular high street locations.
	Indeed, in an evidence session to the scrutiny committee of Haringey council, betting shop operators outlined why clustering is inevitable where there is an unfettered market, as is currently the case. Operators poach each other's development staff, and knowledge about the profitable locations is shared throughout the industry. Where a successful betting shop exists, rivals congregate nearby to share the profits. Clustering of betting shops is inevitable when regulation is as loose as it is.
	It is also worth recognising what bookmakers have become over the past few years. What they offer is a far cry from the romantic vision of placing a small bet on the grand national. The main trade for bookmakers is through fixed-odds betting terminals, which are gaming machines that allow people to play casino games with casino stakes, but at three times the speed. They are highly addictive, allowing users to place stakes of £100 a time, and are known as the crack cocaine of betting for that reason. Such machines are what make betting shops profitable, and the limit of four per shop is what makes further betting premises viable. Betting shops increasingly resemble casinos, except that they do not require the same levels of regulation. Are we comfortable with the fact that a limitless number of betting shops can open up anywhere on our high streets? Are we comfortable that there are five such mini-casinos within 150 metres of the gates of John Loughborough secondary school, particularly given the industry's poor record on age verification? By allowing betting shops to proliferate and cluster, we risk normalising a form of gambling that is dangerously addictive and socially destructive.
	In Haringey, 2,000 residents have signed petitions against further betting shops. The local traders association has come out against further such shops opening, and tackling clustering receives cross-party support from local councillors. The issue is constantly brought up at local area assemblies, and people such as Ian Sygrave and Peter Lorimer have mounted campaigns to marshal the energy of local residents. Campaign groups such as Find Your Voice have held rallies outside proposed sites in Tottenham, and the people of Harringay online, the online community forum for those around the Green lanes area, have documented the changes to their local community through photos and maps. However, that consensus and energy cannot translate into action because the people of Haringey find themselves powerless.
	The clustering of betting shops in Haringey is a consequence of poor licensing legislation. The debate on the Gambling Act 2005 concerned itself too much with super-casinos and their licensing, but neglected to consider the wider impact of removing demand tests for new betting shops. We are left with a licensing framework that requires licensing authorities to aim to permit, yet prevents residents, councillors or interested parties from opposing a premise licence on the basis of how many exist already and gives no scope for considering the cumulative impact of additional premises. It is a licensing framework that burdens councils with legal costs of up to £10,000 if their rejection of a licence is overturned on appeal to a magistrates court, and creates an active disincentive for councils to oppose licences.
	However flawed the licensing system may be, those flaws manifest themselves in planning. That is certainly how the Government have advised Haringey council to handle the matter: the Minister's colleague, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, advised Haringey to pursue an article 4 direction. However, council officials estimate that such a plan could take years to research and implement, and the council could be liable to compensate the businesses affected. That would take up resources and money-resources and money that are obviously scarce at a time of considerable cuts to local authority budgets. I therefore urge the Minister and his colleagues to make real changes to planning laws and give local residents and local councils the power that they need to tackle clustering.

Stephen Gilbert: The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that I used to be a councillor in the London borough of Haringey, so I have an interest in the issue and the area. Is he aware that in 1997, 42% of planning decisions were taken by local councillors, enabling them to stand up for their communities? Ten years later, under Labour, that figure had fallen from 42 to 10%.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman chooses to use this debate to make partisan points. I am saying that this is a cross-party issue, and I am sorry that when he was on Haringey council he did not see it as such. Back in 1997, we did not have the number and clustering of betting shops that we have now. Clearly there is a problem, and we must deal with it.
	Current law-the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987-groups betting shops in the A2 category alongside banks, credit unions and estate agents. A betting shop may open in any premises previously occupied by any of these without the need for planning permission. Do we really believe that betting shops have the same economic impact as banks and credit unions? Do they really cater to the same broad range of customers? Do they both attract similar levels of anti-social behaviour? Yes, they share the characteristics of being low-stock, high-turnover businesses, but do we really believe that a social enterprise service office can pay the same levels of rent as a multinational bookmaking company?
	Even that is not the full story. Current planning law allows betting shops to open in restaurants and cafés under class use A3, in drinking establishments under A4 and takeaways under A5, without planning permission. More than 45% of shop frontage in the borough is open to betting shops to move into without planning permission being required.

Tessa Munt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lammy: I will not give way. I do not want my constituency to turn into the sort of place that can be seen in some urban areas of the United States, with a predominance of liquor shops polluting the area and causing real problems where there is genuine need. I raise this issue not from a partisan position but openly admitting that mistakes were made in relaxing the rules and that there has been a lack of scrutiny here and in the other place. Given the limitations of the licensing framework, the aim to permit, the inability to consider the cumulative impact and the onus on planning to prevent clustering and saturation occurring, it is clear that the current A2 classification does not provide councils and residents with the powers they need to address these concerns.
	Will the Minister consider a revision of the classification of betting shops from A2 to sui generis, a category unto itself. After all, the diversity of footfall that they attract is unique. Their economic impact in an area is wholly different from that of almost any other establishment, particularly those in the A2 class. A sui generis planning category for betting shops would not be revolutionary. Casinos and amusement arcades, which have similar characteristics, are classed as such. Being able to consider each planning application in kind would enable councils and residents to consider the cumulative impact of an additional betting shop, and they could manage the proportion of frontage occupied by them.

Tessa Munt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lammy: I want to hear from the Minister, so I will not give way at this stage.
	Planning law does not exist to prevent gambling, but it should be able to manage it in the context of achieving a sustainable and diverse shopping area. I welcome the Government's instincts for localism, and I want the concerns of the citizens of Haringey, Chinatown, Hackney, Guildford, Lewisham and countless other areas reflected in the decentralisation and localism Bill.
	Is it acceptable that the full force of local democracy and Haringey's civil society can make hardly a dent in the gambling industry's ability to open new premises in the borough? That is the simple question for the Minister. I hope that he will incorporate the proposals made by the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty to allow communities to protect the local services they hold dear. Will he consider giving communities the power to manage the businesses that communities hold less dear, and which indeed threaten the identity and vibrancy of their area? Will he allow neighbourhood plans to limit the percentage of shop frontage available to betting shops?

Tessa Munt: I clearly have no connection with Haringey. My constituency is in rural Somerset and has coastal towns at Highbridge and Burnham-on-Sea. Burnham-on-Sea, in common with probably most town centres and high streets, suffers from a proliferation of betting shops. On the coast, there are also a number of gaming machine shops specifically dedicated to that kind of activity. Surely there must be a way-either in the localism Bill or perhaps by local authorities arriving at a definition of what they want-of allowing local authorities to insist that these kinds of shops are situated at first-floor level or above. That would get rid of the problem of people, especially young people, passing along a high street and seeing the enormous shop fronts which the hon. Gentleman has complained about. If we put those businesses on the first or second floor or above, they would need to find ways for people to access them under the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but we would be left with only a shop doorway-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I regret that this is becoming a speech rather than an intervention.

David Lammy: I have huge sympathy with the hon. Lady's point, and I hope that we can form an alliance across the House. She is absolutely right to draw attention to young people, because the last survey was deeply worrying as it showed the large number of young people who found their way into those premises. Indeed, if she visits my constituency in the middle of the day and looks through the window of these places, she will see young people playing on the machines there, which is deeply worrying.
	I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. He is familiar with my constituency, and I hope he will recognise the strength of feeling from all parties in the House that the present legislative framework is not right and that people need better local determination on the proliferation, clustering and dominance of these premises on our high streets and in our town centres.

Bob Neill: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing this debate on planning law and bookmakers in Haringey. I know that he has strong feelings about the issue; he has spoken to me about it on the telephone and met the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for decentralisation and planning, to talk about it. The debate has raised some important issues about balancing sustainable development with community needs, and I am pleased to be able to respond.
	I shall deal first with the planning process. Reference has been made to the planning and licensing regimes, and it is worth remembering that, although there is an overlap between the two, they are separate and distinct regimes that, in some measure, fulfil different purposes. The right hon. Gentleman was particularly concerned about problems that might arise in the planning process where planning permission was not required to change the use of a building to another use. I will come on to that, but it might help if I first explain the context of these issues.
	To achieve the aim of balanced and sustainable communities, we need homes, jobs, leisure facilities and places to shop, in locations where they can be accessed by all. That is why we focus new development and activities in the cities, towns and villages in which we live. However, we accept that tensions occasionally arise from locating different types of development and land uses next to one another or where particular uses become concentrated. The right hon. Gentleman referred to those tensions, as did my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and for Wells (Tessa Munt). It is therefore important to have a planning system that balances the need to allow business to grow with protections for the community from negative impacts of development. We must also remember that we often have to deal with business uses that are controversial but also lawful, and a balance has to be struck in those cases as well. The planning process seeks to ensure that our communities get the right type of development, located in the right location, to maximise benefits for everyone and, as far as possible, prevent negative impacts.
	Against that background, let me move on to the subject of the debate-specifically, the problems that can arise when planning permission is not needed because the use classes order allows one type of property to be converted into another type without planning permission being required. I have to explain the background to the use classes order, the purpose of which is often misunderstood. The order was introduced to remove unnecessary planning applications from the planning system and to speed up that system. The use classes order is a concept that has been established for many years. It groups together uses that have similar land-use impacts and characteristics. It is limited in that sense. Broader issues such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred may arise, but that is not what the use classes order is intended to deal with. Changes of use within a class are not considered to be development, so they do not require planning permission.
	The relevant class for our discussion tonight is the A2 use class, which includes a range of different properties used in general terms for financial services, including banks, betting shops and estate agents. One can argue about how these things break down, but the fact remains that these are distinct from the different use class that would include fast-food or retail shops. Of course, I accept that two developments, even if characterised together within the same use class, might not have precisely the same operating characteristics-shops can have different opening and delivery times, for example.
	The planning system grants further flexibility by allowing some changes of use between classes to take place without the need for planning application. This applies where the impacts of the proposed use are considered to be less than those of the existing use. In this case, hot-food takeaways, pubs and restaurants can all be converted to the A2 financial services class without the requirement for planning application. One can see the logic in that the impact of a bank or a building society might be less than that of takeaway-there may not be the same cooking smells, for example, and in this day and age I suspect fewer people come out of the bank singing cheerfully at closing time than out of a public house. The impact is less, so no planning application is required.
	The key difference is that local authorities have the power to remove that bit of the freedom of movement-the conversion to something that has a lesser impact. That is the article 4 direction to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If we remove that article 4 direction, a planning application is required. That can be done by the local planning authority if there are local concerns about such developments. That is why this option was available and has been suggested in respect of the situation in Haringey.

David Lammy: Does the Minister accept that it is very costly to proceed through an article 4? The main point is that bookmakers should clearly not be in the A2 class with banks. They should be in a separate class of their own. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman understands that because he concentrates his remarks on banks and estate agents. Bookmakers are wholly different; surely they should be somewhere near to casinos and amusement parks.

Bob Neill: Two or perhaps three points arise. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's observation that his local council thinks it would take years to produce the policy for an article 4 direction. I can see nothing on the face of the system that should require such a long period. Secondly, there is compensation. We must have a rule that applies to all article 4 directions because such a direction is-justifiably or otherwise-an interference or at least a restriction on the proprietary rights of the owner of the property. It limits what the owner can do with that property, which can affect its value, so it is reasonable and proportionate that there should be compensation. We cannot say that that should be any different for an article 4 direction that applies to only one type of use as opposed to another. That would be neither just nor proportionate.
	A case can be made, but various people will have different value judgments about the social, moral, ethical or economic worth of certain types of business uses. The use classes order, however, deals with land uses rather than making value judgments about certain types of business uses.

Tessa Munt: On a pier, for example, there is often a discrete area where people might expect to see such activity taking place. I assume that piers will not fall within the general conditions relating to high streets and town centres to which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I have referred.

Bob Neill: I understand the hon. Lady's point, and also the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. We must accept that the planning system is not intended to deal with all issues of social contention to which value judgments apply. There is a separate licensing system which, to some degree, handles such matters as well, but the planning system, and in particular the use classes order, may not be the best vehicle to deal with what is a legitimate issue of social debate: the worth or otherwise of certain legal activities. That is why I think there is a difficulty in the right hon. Gentleman's proposition about a sui generis use class order. I accept that some of his points have force, and I accept that his concerns and those of his constituents are genuine. There are tensions in cases such as this, and the face of a high street can change if one particular use comes to dominate. However, as I have said, we cannot expect the planning system to be capable of solving all community issues. It is necessary to find a balance.
	We have examined the position, and while I accept that in some cases difficulties can arise, I do not think it necessary to consider whether a national approach would be proportionate when there is no evidence to suggest that the proliferation of betting shops is a widespread problem that requires national legislation. There is also no evidence to suggest that banks are withdrawing from high streets because of betting shops, although they may be doing so for other reasons.

Tessa Munt: I beg to differ, given the quantity of casework with which I deal involving increasingly younger groups of people who have to search for help from the citizens advice bureau and various Christian organisations -I met representatives of one in Cheddar, in my constituency, on Saturday-because of disproportionate amounts of debt that originated from gambling.

Bob Neill: I am not suggesting that that is not an issue, but it is necessary to establish whether the planning law or the licensing regime is appropriate. My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have expressed willingness to monitor the extent to which the number and concentration of betting shops have changed since the Gambling Act 2005 came into force, and to establish whether there is a causal link between undesirable social impacts and any proliferation. They will continue to work with local authorities to that end.
	Finally, a localism Bill will give local authorities more discretion in regard to the way in which they reflect local need in the planning process. Before too long, we will present proposals relating both to the Bill and to associated planning reforms. I do not suggest that that will automatically provide a silver bullet either, but we will keep these matters under review.
	 House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Deferred Divisions

northern ireland

That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 217.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Northern ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Health and Safety

That the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the EPR Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 520, Noes 27.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Health and safety

That the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the AP1000 Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 517, Noes 26.

Question accordingly agreed to.